The formation process of the USSR. Foreign and domestic policy of the USSR

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

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

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

INTRODUCTION

At the end of the civil war, the country's territory was, especially in the outskirts, a conglomerate of various state and national-state formations, the status of which was determined by many factors: the movement of the fronts, the state of affairs on the ground, the strength of local separatist and national movements. As the Red Army occupied strong points in various territories, the question arose of streamlining the national state structure.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - this was the name of the state that existed on political map the world for almost 70 years. It was a powerful superpower that united nations and peoples living today on the territory of new state formations. We can say that we all come from the USSR, and this circumstance again and again forces us to return to the pages of Soviet history, taking a fresh look at their features, at the events that took place in those years. Today's assessments of these events are not at all unambiguous. Political reforms recent years and the pluralism of opinions that has arisen thanks to them, allow us to more objectively analyze many phenomena and processes.

Let us cite published in the 1950s-1960s. encyclopedic work "World History": "The Great October Socialist Revolution won under the banner of proletarian internationalism. The natural result of the further development and strengthening ... of ties between the Soviet nations was the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which embodied the great Leninist idea of a voluntary union of equal peoples ... History knew many cases of the emergence of multinational capitalist states, but such states were based on violence and came to its inevitable collapse ... Only on the basis of socialism was it possible to create a completely viable multinational state. "

According to the Encyclopedic Dictionary of a Young Historian ", from the beginning of the twentieth century in the USSR, and then in the countries of Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and Cuba, attempts were made to create fundamentally new democratic forms of the state, ensuring the power of the working people. Such democratic principles as the supremacy of representative collegial bodies, the participation of workers in the management of public affairs, the right of nations to self-determination and others were proclaimed ... But democratic forms were perverted by the totalitarian regimes that developed in practice in these countries.

Interesting is the point of view of Professor P. Gronsky, who dealt with the problems of the national state structure after 1917. He, like many other scientists in those years, went abroad and there, analyzing the articles of the first Union Constitution, he concluded that the USSR could not by the state, not by the federation, that such an entity can disappear at any moment.

In the presented work, we will try to draw conclusions from the experience of the creation of the USSR; in general, our work is devoted to the study of the features of the process of formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Today it is obvious that the formation of the USSR was the most important stage in the formation of a new model of statehood on the territory of the disintegrated Russian Empire and determined many features of the subsequent development of the country.

purpose of work- to analyze ideas about the main features of the formation process of the USSR, paying attention to the relationship between history and modernity.

1. BACKGROUND OF THE FORMATION OF THE USSR

1.1. Ideological

The October Revolution of 1917 led to the collapse of the Russian Empire. The disintegration of the former unified state space, which had existed for several centuries, took place. However, the Bolshevik idea of a world revolution and the creation of a World Federative Republic of Soviets in the future forced a new unification process. An active role in the deployment of the unification movement was played by the RSFSR, whose authorities were interested in restoring unitary state on the territory of the former Russian Empire.

1.2 National policy of the Bolsheviks

The national policy of the Soviet state contributed to the growth of confidence in the central government. It was based on the principle of equality of all nations and nationalities and the right of nations to self-determination, enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia (November 2, 1917) and the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People (January 1918). Beliefs, customs, national and cultural institutions of the peoples of the Volga region and Crimea, Siberia and Turkestan, the Caucasus and Transcaucasia were declared free and inviolable, which caused an increase in confidence in the new government not only on the part of the foreigners of Russia (who constituted 57% of the population), but also in European countries , Asia. The right to self-determination was used in 1917 by Poland and Finland. Throughout the rest of the territory of the former Russian Empire, national governments led Civil war the struggle for national independence (including the Ukrainian Central Rada, the Belarusian Socialist Gromada, the Turkic Musavat Party in Azerbaijan, the Kazakh Alash, etc.).

1.3 Political

In connection with the victory of Soviet power on the main territory of the former Russian Empire, another prerequisite for the unification process arose - the unified nature of the political system (the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of Soviets), similar features of the organization of state power and administration. In most republics, power belonged to the national communist parties. The instability of the international position of the young Soviet republics in the conditions of capitalist encirclement also dictated the need for unification.

1.4 Economic and cultural

The need for unification was also dictated by the historical commonality of the destinies of the peoples of the multinational state, the presence of long-term economic and cultural ties. Historically, an economic division of labor has developed between the various regions of the country: the industry of the center supplied the regions of the southeast and the north, receiving in return raw materials — cotton, timber, flax; southern regions were the main oil suppliers, coal, iron ore etc. The significance of this division increased after the end of the Civil War, when the task arose of restoring the destroyed economy and overcoming the economic backwardness of the Soviet republics. Textile and wool factories, tanneries, printing houses were transferred from the central provinces to the national republics and regions, doctors and teachers were sent. The GOELRO (electrification of Russia) plan, adopted in 1920, also provided for the development of the economy of all regions of the country.

2. STAGES OF FORMATION OF THE USSR

2.1 Military-political union

The war, and especially foreign intervention, demonstrated the need for a defensive alliance. In the summer of 1919, a military-political union of the Soviet republics was formed. On June 1, 1919, a decree was signed on the unification of the Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus for the fight against world imperialism. A unified military command was approved, economic councils, transport, finance and labor commissariats were united. It is clear that in those conditions, the management of the united financial system was carried out from Moscow, just as the national military formations were completely subordinate to the High Command of the Red Army. The military-political unity of the Soviet republics played a huge role in the defeat of the combined forces of intervention.

2.2 Organizational and economic union

In 1920 - 1921 Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan have concluded military-economic agreements among themselves. During this period, representatives of Ukraine, Belarus, the Transcaucasian republics entered the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the RSFSR, and some people's commissariats began to unite. As a result, the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the RSFSR actually turned into a governing body for the industry of all republics. In February 1921, the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR was created, headed by G.M. Krzhizhanovsky, also called upon to lead the implementation of a single economic plan. In August 1921, the Federal Committee for Land Affairs was created in the RSFSR, which regulated the development of agricultural production and land use throughout the country. Since the spring of 1921, in response to V.I. Lenin on the economic unification of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the creation of the Transcaucasian Federation began, organizationally taking shape in March 1922 (TSFSR).

2.3 Diplomatic Union

In February 1922 in Moscow, a meeting of representatives of the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Bukhara, Khorezm and the Far Eastern Republic instructed the delegation of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee to represent at the international conference in Genoa on the economic restoration of Central and Eastern Europe (April 1922) the interests of all Soviet republics, to conclude on their behalf any treaties and agreements. The RSFSR delegation was replenished with representatives of Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia.

3. FORMS OF FEDERATION (ASSOCIATION) OF THE REPUBLIC

3.1 Creation of autonomies

The practice of federation in the first years of Soviet power consisted in the creation of autonomies in the Russian Federation on a national, territorial, and economic basis. However, in the striving of the republics to strengthen their sovereign rights, a number of party workers, including the People's Commissar I.V. Stalin saw the main obstacle to unity. They considered the creation of independent national republics as a solution to purely temporary, political problems. Therefore, in order to avoid nationalist tendencies, the task was to create the largest possible territorial associations, which was expressed in the creation of the Lithuanian-Belarusian Soviet Republic, the Tatar-Bashkir Soviet Republic (TBSR), the Mountain Republics, the Turkestan ASSR (which existed for a relatively short time). Later, in the course of the struggle against Pan-Turkism, the TBSR and the Buryat-Mongol Autonomous District were disbanded.

3.2 Forms of autonomies

In 1918 - 1922. peoples, mainly small and compactly living surrounded by the Great Russian lands, received autonomy of two levels within the RSFSR:

1) republican - 11 autonomous republics (Turkestan, Bashkir, Karelian, Buryat, Yakutsk, Tatar, Dagestan, Gorskaya, etc.)

2) 10 regions received regional autonomy (Kalmyk, Chuvash, Komi-Zyryansk, Adyge, Kabardino-Balkarian, etc.) and one autonomous Karelian labor commune (since 1923 an autonomous republic).

3.3 Contractual relations between republics

Bolshevik Union Soviet Republic

Theoretically independent Soviet republics entered into contractual relations with the RSFSR. In 1918 the Council of People's Commissars recognized the independence of the Estland Soviet Republic, the Soviet Republic of Latvia, the Lithuanian Soviet Republic, in 1920 - the Byelorussian Soviet Republic, the Azerbaijan SSR, the Armenian SSR; in 1921 - the Georgian SSR. In 1920-1921, after the defeat of national governments and the completion of the process of Sovietization of the national outskirts, bilateral treaties were concluded on a military-economic alliance between Russia and Azerbaijan, a military and economic alliance between Russia and Belarus, allied treaties between Russia and Ukraine, Russia and Georgia. The last two unification agreements did not include the unification of the activities of the people's commissariats of foreign affairs.

3.4 Discussion in the RCP (b) on issues of state unification

The Bolsheviks viewed the federation as a transitional stage on the eve of the world revolution, as an indispensable step on the path to union and overcoming national differences. The project, developed by Stalin in the summer of 1922, and known as the autonomization plan, provided for the entry of the independent republics into the Russian Federation as autonomies. Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of Ukraine Kh.G. Rakovsky reacted negatively to the Stalinist project. He was completely rejected by representatives of the Communist Party of Georgia. IN AND. Lenin also condemned Stalin's hasty actions and spoke out against excessive centralism, for the need to strengthen the sovereignty and attributes of the independence of each republic as a prerequisite for the rallying of peoples. He proposed the form of a federal union as a voluntary and equal association of independent Soviet republics, which alienated on an equal footing a number of sovereign rights of the republics in favor of the general union bodies.

4. FORMATION OF THE UNION OF SSR AND NATIONAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Preparatory work for the I Congress of Soviets of the USSR

V.I. Lenin were taken into account by the commission of the Central Committee. The resolution of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the form of unification of independent Soviet republics (dated October 6, 1922) recognized the need to conclude an agreement between Ukraine, Belarus, the Federation of the Transcaucasian Republics and the RSFSR on their unification into the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, leaving each of them the right free secession from the Union. By November 30, the commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) developed the main points of the Constitution of the USSR, which were sent to the Communist Party of the republics for discussion. On December 18, 1922, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) discussed the draft Treaty on the formation of the USSR and proposed to convene a Congress of Soviets of the USSR.

4.2 First All-Union Congress of Soviets

The I Congress of Soviets of the USSR opened on December 30, 1922. 2215 delegates took part in it. The number of delegations from the republics was determined in proportion to the number of the population in them. The most numerous was the Russian delegation - 1727 people. I.V. Stalin. The congress basically approved the Declaration and the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR as part of four republics - the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, and the ZSFSR. The Declaration legally enshrined the principles of the union state structure: voluntariness, equality and cooperation on the basis of proletarian internationalism. Access to the union remained open to all Soviet republics. The treaty determined the procedure for the entry of individual republics into the USSR, the right to free exit, the competence of the highest bodies of state power. The congress elected the Central Executive Committee of the USSR (CEC) - the supreme body of power in the period between congresses.

4.3 USSR Constitution of 1924

In January 1924, the first Constitution of the USSR was adopted, according to which the Congress of Soviets of the USSR was declared the supreme body of power. In the intervals between them, the supreme power was exercised by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, which consisted of two legislative chambers - the Council of the Union and the Council of Nationalities. The Central Executive Committee of the USSR formed a government - the Council of People's Commissars. Three types of commissariats were created (allied - foreign affairs, army and navy, foreign trade, communications, communications); unified (at the union and republican level); republican (domestic politics, jurisprudence, public education). The OGPU received the status of a union commissariat. The powers for international border defense, internal security, planning and budget were also transferred to the allied bodies. Proclaiming the federal principle of the structure of the state, the Constitution of the USSR contained unitary tendencies, since, for example, it only declared and did not stipulate the mechanism for secession from the USSR, encouraged the intervention of the center in the affairs of the republics (Articles 13-29 Chapter IV), etc.

4.4 Unitary trends in the state building of the USSR

Since the end of the 20s. many republican enterprises were transferred to the direct subordination of union bodies, the competence of which was significantly expanded in connection with the liquidation of the Supreme Council of the National Economy in 1932. The number of union and union-republican people's commissariats grew. Since 1930, all lending has been concentrated in the union bodies, in particular the State Bank of the USSR. Centralization has occurred judicial system... At the same time, there was a restriction on the legislative initiative of the republics (in 1929, the republics' right to raise questions directly to the Central Executive Committee of the USSR was canceled - they had to first submit them to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR). As a result, the scope of the powers and rights of the USSR in the management of industry and finance changes in the direction of their expansion, which was a consequence of the tightening of centralization of management.

4.5 Nation-building

From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1924 and up to the Constitution of 1936, the process of nation-state building took place, which was carried out in the following areas: the formation of new union republics; changes in the state and legal form of some republics and autonomous regions; strengthening the role of the center, union authorities. In 1924, as a result of the national-state delimitation in Central Asia where the borders did not coincide with the ethnic boundaries of the settlement of peoples, the Turkmen SSR and the Uzbek SSR were formed, in 1931 - the Tajik SSR. In 1936, the Kirghiz SSR and the Kazakh SSR were formed. In the same year, the Transcaucasian Federation was abolished, and the Republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia were directly part of the USSR. In 1939, after the signing of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, Western Ukraine and Western Belarus were annexed to the USSR. In 1940, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the former Russian lands seized by Romania in 1918 (Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina) were included in the USSR.

5. CONTRACT AND DECLARATION ON THE FORMATION OF THE USSR

The treaty on the formation of the USSR is a document that legally formalized and consolidated the union into one union state - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - four Soviet socialist republics - the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR and the ZSFSR (Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia). This union treaty was adopted on December 29, 1922 by a conference of plenipotentiary delegations elected by the congresses of the Soviets of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR and the ZSFSR, and on December 30 of the same year, the treaty, together with the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR, was basically approved by the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR. On January 31, 1924, the 2nd Congress of Soviets of the USSR approved the first Constitution of the USSR, which included the treaty on the formation of the USSR.

The treaty is based on the Leninist principles of the structure of the union socialist state. It fixes the constitutional foundations of the USSR, defines the supreme bodies of state power and state administration of the USSR, establishes what issues fall within their competence, fixes the procedure for the election and norms of representation of delegates to the Congress of Soviets of the USSR, the procedure for convening congresses of Soviets and sessions of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, determines the composition of the Councils of People's Commissioners of the USSR and the union republics, the establishment of other central bodies is envisaged.

The agreement regulates the general principles of rule-making and the subordination of state bodies of the USSR and the union republics, established a system of subordination of acts issued by union and republican bodies, which was of great importance for ensuring public administration in a federal structure of the country. The treaty established a single union citizenship for all citizens of the union republics and fixed the right of free withdrawal from the union to each of the union republics.

Declaration on the formation of the USSR, a historical document, which, along with the Treaty on the formation of the USSR, constituted the constitutional basis for building the USSR as a multinational state.

The Declaration indicated the reasons that necessitated the unification of all existing Soviet republics into a single union state. First of all, this is the need to restore the destroyed during the 1st World War and the Civil War National economy and the socialist restructuring of the economy. Ensuring the external security of the Soviet republics against the intrigues of international imperialism in the conditions of capitalist encirclement and thereby protecting the gains of the working people also required the combined efforts of all Soviet republics. The declaration emphasized that the creation of the USSR is a voluntary association of equal peoples, in which every Soviet republic retains the right to freely secede from the Union. On December 29, 1922, the draft Declaration was approved by a conference of plenipotentiary delegations of the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, BSSR and ZSFSR, and on December 30, 1922, the Declaration, together with the Treaty on the formation of the USSR, was adopted by the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR. It was included as the 1st section in the Constitution of the USSR in 1924.

6. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE USSR EDUCATION

6.1 Leveling the levels of backward peoples

The formation of the USSR united the efforts of the peoples to restore and develop the economy, culture, and overcome the backwardness of some republics. In the course of nation-building, a policy was pursued of pulling up the backward national regions, achieving de facto equality between them. For this purpose, factories, factories with equipment and part of qualified personnel were transferred from the RSFSR to Central Asia and the Transcaucasian Republic. Allocations were made here for irrigation, the construction of railways, and electrification. Large tax payments were made to the budgets of other republics.

6.2 Socio-cultural significance

There were some positive results national policy Soviet government in the field of culture, education, health care systems in the republics. In the 20s - 30s. are created national schools, theaters, newspapers, literature in the languages of the peoples of the USSR are widely published. Some peoples receive the writing system developed by scientists for the first time. Health issues were addressed. So, if in the North Caucasus before 1917 there were 12 hospitals and only 32 doctors, then by 1939 only 335 doctors worked in Dagestan (of which 14% were representatives of the indigenous nationality). The Union of the Peoples of the USSR was one of the sources of the victory over fascism in 1941-1945.

6.3 Influence of the command-and-control system on national policy

In fact, the sovereignty of the union republics remained nominal, since real power in them was concentrated in the hands of the committees of the RCP (b). Key political, economic decisions were made by the central party bodies, which were obligatory for the republican ones. Internationalism in its practical implementation came to be regarded as the right to ignore the national identity and culture of peoples. The question was raised about the withering away of national and linguistic diversity on the way to communism. The Stalinist repressions in the republics and the subsequent deportations of peoples had a negative impact on the national policy. At the same time, not only the peoples of the USSR suffered from the struggle against nationalism, but, to no lesser extent, the Russian people themselves. Administrative, unitarian tendencies in the national policy of the USSR created the basis for the formation of potential hotbeds of future interethnic conflicts. At the same time, the Soviet leadership sought to suppress separatist tendencies in the national regions by creating a local bureaucracy there, providing it with visible independence under real strict control from the central government.

CONCLUSION

So, let us formulate the main provisions that we have arrived at in accordance with the purpose of our work.

Considering the prerequisites for the formation of the USSR, we established the following facts.

In the territory where by 1922 the power of the Soviets was established, ethnic composition, despite the change in boundaries, remained very variegated. 185 nations and nationalities lived here (according to the 1926 census). True, many of them represented either "scattered" national communities, or insufficiently defined ethnic formations, or specific offshoots of other ethnic groups. For the unification of these peoples into a single state, undoubtedly, there were objective prerequisites that have deep historical, economic, political and cultural foundations. The formation of the USSR was not only an act imposed from above by the Bolshevik leadership. It was simultaneously a process of unification supported "from below".

Since the entry of various peoples into Russia and the annexation of new territories to it, no matter what representatives of national movements say today, they were objectively connected by a common historical fate, migrations took place, population mixing took place, a single economic system of the country was formed, based on the division of labor between territories, a common transport network, a postal and telegraph service was created, an all-Russian market was formed, cultural, linguistic and other contacts were established. There were factors that impeded unification: the Russification policy of the old regime, restriction and restriction of the rights of individual nationalities. The ratio of centripetal and centrifugal tendencies, which today are fighting with renewed vigor in the territory the former USSR, is determined by the totality of many circumstances: the duration of the joint "residence" of different peoples, the presence of a compactly populated territory, the number of nations, the strength of the "cohesion" of their ties, the presence or absence of their own statehood in the past, traditions, the uniqueness of the way of life, national spirit, etc. At the same time, it is hardly possible to draw an analogy between Russia and the colonial empires that existed in the past and call the first after the Bolsheviks a "prison of peoples." The differences characteristic of Russia are striking - these are the integrity of the territory, the multiethnic nature of its settlement, peaceful, predominantly popular colonization, the absence of genocide in relation to other nations, historical kinship and the similarity of the fate of individual peoples. The formation of the USSR also had its own political background - the need for joint survival of the created political regimes in the face of a hostile external environment.

In order to determine the most expedient and rational forms of uniting the Soviet republics into a single state, a special commission of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was created, which from the very beginning showed disagreements with the People's Commissariat for Nationalities. Stalin and his supporters (Dzerzhinsky, Ordzhonikidze, etc.), mostly from among the so-called "Russopaths", that is, persons of non-Russian nationality who had lost contact with their national environment, but were defenders of Russia's interests, put forward the idea of autonomizing these republics in the composition of the RSFSR. Cases in which such groups are the bearers of great power represent a curious psychological phenomenon in human history.

Already at the X Congress of the RCP (b), which marked the transition to NEP, Stalin, speaking with the main speech on the national question, argued that it was the Russian Federation that was the living embodiment of the sought form of the state union of republics. Stalin's speech at the congress caused a violent reaction. GI Safarov, member of the Turkestan Commission of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, accused the entire party of inattention to the national question, as a result of which the Bolsheviks, in his opinion, made a lot of unforgivable mistakes in Central Asia. The speaker was right, because, indeed, the leftist folds of the Bolsheviks in Turkestan brought local population many troubles, which at that time did not see the end, as evidenced by the growth of the rebel (Basmach) movement in this region.

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

On December 0, 1922, at the Congress of Soviets, where the delegations of the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus and the ZSFSR were represented, the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was proclaimed. The union was built according to the model developed in the Transcaucasus. The corresponding Declaration and Agreement were adopted. The Declaration stated the reasons and principles of the association. The Treaty defined the relationship between the republics that form the union state. Formally, it was established as a federation of sovereign Soviet republics with the preservation of the right of free exit and open access to it. However, no "free exit" mechanism was envisaged. Issues of foreign policy, foreign trade, finance, defense, means of communication, communications were transferred to the competence of the Union. The rest was considered under the jurisdiction of the union republics. The supreme body of the country was declared the All-Union Congress of Soviets, in the intervals between its convocations - the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, which consisted of two chambers: the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities.

Throughout history with the formation of the USSR, one cannot fail to draw attention to the fact that party functionaries, their whims and whims play an important role in all events. They put their actions into practice with the help of intrigue and behind-the-scenes maneuvers. The role of the representative bodies themselves is reduced to the approval of decisions worked out not by them, but by the party bodies. For a long time it was believed that with the intervention of Lenin it was possible to achieve the elimination of the wrong attitudes from the point of view of solving the national question, from the Bolshevik practice, and the straightening of the Stalinist line.

On the day when the union state was formed, Lenin's work "On the Question of Nationalities and Autonomization" was published. This work reveals Lenin's dissatisfaction with the entire history associated with the formation of the USSR, Stalin's untimely undertaking, which, in his opinion, "brought the whole thing into a swamp." However, Lenin's efforts, his attempts to "sort out" the manifestations of Great Russian chauvinism, to punish those responsible for the "Georgian incident" did not have any particular consequences. The stream of events in the party rushed in the other direction and passed without Lenin's participation. A struggle for his inheritance was already unfolding, in which the figure of Stalin rose more and more. We can say that, having shown himself to be a supporter of a centralist state, harsh and rough administrative decisions on the national question, Stalin changed little in his attitude to national policy, constantly emphasizing the dangers of nationalist manifestations and the need for their merciless suppression.

At the same time, the formation of the union state, despite the situation in which it took place, had many positive potentialities, especially during the NEP period, when not everything depended on Stalin and there was no rigid centralized planning and distribution system. In this sense, the creation of the USSR should be regarded not as the final, final act of nation-building, but as an important step forward in solving the national question, as a certain prospect for the development of national relations within the framework of the union state, which has not found its full embodiment.

The II All-Union Congress of Soviets, held in January 1924 on the days of mourning associated with the death of Lenin, adopted a union constitution, which was based on the Declaration and the Treaty, and the rest of its provisions were based on the principles of the RSFSR Constitution of 1918, reflecting the situation of acute social confrontation. In 1924-1925. the constitutions of the union republics were adopted, basically repeating the provisions of the all-union.

The formation of a multinational union state corresponded to many cultural and historical traditions of the peoples living on the territory of the former Russian Empire. The creation of the USSR also contributed to the strengthening of the geopolitical position of the new state within the international community. However, the initial adherence of the Bolsheviks to the ideas of Unitarianism had a negative impact on the further development of statehood, which after 1936 was carried out within the framework of the administrative system that had taken shape. By the end of the 30s. there was a final transition to the unitary model of the state in its Stalinist version.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1. Gorinov M.M., Doshchenko E.I. 30s // History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, solutions. Essays on the history of the Soviet state. M .: Politizdat, 1991.

2. History of Russia (IX - XX centuries): Tutorial/ Resp. editor Ya.A. Terepov. - M .; Rostov on Don, 2002.

3. History of Russia: Textbook for universities / Sh.M. Munchaev, Ustinov V.М. - M .: Ed. Group Infra - M - Norma, 1997.

4. Kara-Murza S.G. History of the state and the law of Russia. M .: Publishing house "Bylina", 1998.

5. Kilseev E.I. History of the Fatherland XIX - XX centuries. Terms, concepts, personalities / Methodological guide. Nizhniy Novgorod: Edition of VVAGS, 2000.

6. Short story THE USSR. In two volumes. Leningrad: Science. Leningrad branch, 1972.

7. Nekrasova M.B. The history of homeland. Textbook for universities. - M., 2007.

8. Recent History Fatherland. XX century: In 2v. M .: Humanit. ed. center VLADOS, 1998. - T.2.

9. Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Georgieva N.G., Sivokhina T.A. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day. M .: Rozhnikov, 2001.

10. Political history: Russia - USSR - Russian Federation: In 2v. M .: TERRA, 1996. - T.2.

11. Russian archive. The history of the Fatherland in the evidence and documents of the 18th-20th centuries. M .: Editorial office of the almanac "Russian Archive", 2004.

12. Sokolov A.K. Course of Soviet history, 1917-1940: Textbook. manual for university students. - M .: Higher. shk., 1999.

13. USSR. Encyclopedic reference. - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1982.

14. Reader on the history of Russia: Textbook / AS Orlov, VA Georgiev, NG Georgieva, TA Sivokhina; M .: Prospect, 2002.

15. Shevelev V.N. The history of homeland. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2006.

16. Encyclopedic Dictionary of a Young Historian. General history/ Comp. N.S. Elmanova, E. M. Savicheva. - M .: Pedagogika-Press, 1994.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Video version of the article:

On January 21, 2016, Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting of the Presidential Council for Science and Education (http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51190), where they discussed the moment of the creation of the Soviet Union and the mistake of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

M. Kovalchuk:

... The question is: today, under today's system, the one who, in fact, by right is the leader, can or cannot take on the functions and responsibility for the development of a certain area? After all, we do not share special rations, but special responsibility. This is a very important thing.

You know, Pasternak has a short poem "A High Disease", where he analyzes the October Revolution and at the end he says the following thing about Lenin: ". What is the answer: "He controlled the flow of thought and only because of the country."

Our question is that we need to find organizations that must control the flow of thought in specific directions, and this can be done only by having these organizations proactively, if any, and help them administratively.

... Regarding the fact that the main thing is to control the flow of thought. This is correct, of course. Mikhail Valentinovich, it is right to control the flow of thought. It is only important that this thought lead to the desired result, and not as with Vladimir Ilyich. But the idea itself is correct. Ultimately, this thought led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, that's what. There were many such thoughts: autonomization and so on - they laid atomic bomb under the building, which is called Russia, and then she rushed. AND we didn't need a world revolution... There is such a thought there - we have to think more, what a thought ...

Let's follow the advice of Vladimir Vladimirovich.

Two views - two perspectives

http://uslide.ru/images/18/24164/960/img14.jpg

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin throughout his life fiercely fought various "deviations" in the national question. In his opinion, the communist movement should be united as a monolith, without division into Russians, Jews, Georgians, Armenians, etc. Without this, he believed that the victory of the world socialist revolution and the building of the communist United States of the world would never be possible.

Secretary of the Central Committee Joseph Stalin was considered a recognized specialist in the national question in the Communist Party. Instead of the key point of Lenin's national doctrine - the right to self-determination, he puts forward a demand of a higher order - interests workers layers, that is, indicates that the implementation of justice is more important than goals originating from national character, they must have a position subordinate to the cause of justice. And this requirement must be subject to the right to self-determination, which will prevent the collapse of the multinational state.

At the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918, Stalin pointed out the need:

interpretation of the principle of self-determination as the right to self-determination not of the bourgeoisie, but of the laboring masses of a given nation. The principle of self-determination must be a means for the struggle for socialism and must be subordinated to the principles of socialism.

The main work of I.V. Stalin, in which he outlined his own system of views on the national question, is the article "Marxism and the National Question", written in Vienna in late 1912 - early 1913. It was Stalin who gave the definition of a nation, which is still used all over the world.

Nation- it is "a historically established stable community of people, which arose on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life (and, if we transfer it into today's globalized world, the unity of the sphere of social self-government) and a mental make-up, manifested in a community of culture."

A distinctive feature of Stalin's views on the national question is his extremely critical attitude to the idea of cultural and national autonomy.

Stalin does not tire of repeating that secession does not guarantee the nation's independence, which we see today all over the world, where many states are sovereign on paper, in fact, unconditionally depend on other, more developed and powerful powers. Stalin directly equates cultural-national autonomy with nationalism and separatism. In his opinion, the implementation of this idea will inevitably lead to the isolation and division of different nations. And such an atomized mass of people, dispersed along their national "corners", is easier to manage at the global level than people united by common values - the principle of "divide, play and rule" in action (by the way, people are also divided on the Web, driving them into their " corrals "of various subcultures).

At the same time, Stalin especially noted that each specific state has its own characteristics of the formation of a national character and therefore the blunt imposition of uniform cultural patterns (the current situation with the imposition of Western values is a vivid example) can only lead to conflicts and troubles:

The economic, political and cultural conditions surrounding a given nation are the only clues to deciding whether how it is precisely this or that nation that should settle down, what forms its future constitution should take. Moreover, it is possible that each nation will need a special solution to the issue... If where a dialectical formulation of the question is needed, it is precisely here, in the national question.

There are no uniform solutions for all peoples - it is necessary to consider each specific case separately. So Vladimir Putin spoke about this in his programmatic article on the national question (http://www.ng.ru/politics/2012-01-23/1_national.html):

Civil peace and interethnic harmony is a picture created more than once and frozen for centuries. On the contrary, it is constant dynamics, dialogue. This is a painstaking work of the state and society, requiring very subtle decisions, a balanced and wise policy capable of ensuring “unity in diversity”. It is necessary not only to comply with mutual obligations, but also finding common values for all.

In 1922, it was Stalin who was instructed by the party to prepare a draft of a unified union treaty, creating a special commission under his leadership. In parallel, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) turned to its colleagues from other union republics to submit their proposals to this commission.

Conclusions of the Stalin Commission

About them can be judged by the memo, which he sent to Lenin (Journal "Izvestia of the Central Committee of the KPSS." 1989. No. 9. Pp. 198-200. "Letter from I. V. Stalin to V. I. Lenin"). In the letter, Stalin pointed out that the game of national independence should be immediately ended, the promises of which the Soviet government was forced to make during the Civil War in order to preserve the loyalty of the outskirts of the former empire to the new center. He believed that the national republics should be subordinated to Moscow, giving them only some autonomy in matters of domestic policy.

Otherwise, Stalin warned, trouble awaits the socialist state:

We are going through such a phase of development ... when the young generation of communists on the outskirts refuses to understand the game of independence as a game, stubbornly taking words of independence at face value and also stubbornly demanding from us the implementation of the letter of the constitutions of independent republics ... If now we do not try to adapt the form of relations between the center and the outskirts of the actual relationship, by virtue of which the outskirts must obey the center in everything, then ... in a year it will be incomparably more difficult to defend the unity of the Soviet republics (http://his95.narod.ru/doc18/dc16.htm).

That is, Stalin, not without reason, believed that the games of the communists of Ukraine and Georgia could lead to the collapse of a single socialist space, which in itself posed a serious threat in the face of any external danger. And the first socialist state in the world had a great many enemies:

... (I already have ... a statement by the Georgian Central Committee of the Communist Party about the desirability of preserving independence).
[…]
For information, I would like to inform you that the by no means "non-sticky" Ukrainian comrade Rakovsky, as they say, speaks out against autonomization (this part of the text of the letter is contained only in the journal Izvestia of the Central Committee of the KPSS. 1989. No. 9. Pp. 198-200. "Letter I . V. Stalin to V. I. Lenin ").

It would seem that Lenin, who has always opposed national exclusiveness, had to support Stalin, as they say, with both hands.

However, he criticized Stalin's plan for autonomization. And in a very sharp form ...

Autonomization plan

Autonomization- a term that arose in connection with the work of a commission created by the decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (b) in August 1922 to develop a proposal for the unification of independent Soviet republics (RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, ZSFSR, BSSR) into a single state. The commission was attended by: I. V. Stalin (chairman, People's Commissar of Nationalities), G. I. Petrovsky, A. F. Myasnikov, S. M. Kirov, G. K. Ordzhonikidze, V. M. Molotov, A. G. Chervyakov and others. The plan of autonomization proposed by Stalin and adopted by the commission assumed the proclamation of the RSFSR as a state, which includes the Ukrainian SSR, ZSFSR, and BSSR as autonomous republics; respectively, the supreme bodies of power and administration in the country were to become the Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars and the STO of the RSFSR.

The current relations that had developed by that time between the independent republics were built on the basis of equal treaties on military-political and economic alliances. The tasks of strengthening defense, restoring and further developing the national economy along the path of socialism, political, economic and cultural advancement of all nationalities demanded a closer cohesion of the Soviet republics into a single multinational state. The question of the political form of the multinational Soviet socialist state was the main one in the work of the commission of the Central Committee of the party.

V.I.Lenin (he was sick), having familiarized himself with the materials of the commission and having talked with a number of comrades, sent a letter to the members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on September 26, 1922, in which he criticized in principle the plan for states on the basis of complete equality of all independent Soviet republics:

... we recognize ourselves as equal with the Ukrainian SSR and others, and together and on an equal footing with them enter a new union, a new federation ...

Lenin wrote (Poln. Sobr. Soch., 5th ed., Vol. 45, p. 211). Lenin emphasized that it is necessary not to destroy the independence of the republics, but to create:

... another floor, a federation of equal republics (ibid., P. 212).

On October 6, 1922, Lenin sent a note to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the party in which he categorically insisted on equal representation of all union republics in the leadership of the all-federal Central Executive Committee (see ibid., P. 214). Lenin's plan for the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics formed the basis for a new draft commission, which was reported by Stalin and approved by the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on October 6, 1922.

Lenin returned to criticism of the plan of autonomization in one of his last letters - "On the question of nationalities or" autonomization "." Lenin wrote that “... this whole idea,“ autonomization ”, was fundamentally wrong and untimely” (ibid., P. 356), that it could only do harm, distorting the idea of uniting Soviet republics in the spirit of “great power chauvinism”. The project violated the principle of self-determination of nations, granting the independent republics only the right of autonomous existence within the RSFSR.

Lenin opposed excessive centralism in matters of unification, demanded maximum attention and caution in resolving issues of national policy. The unification of the republics should be carried out in such a form that will really ensure the equality of nations, strengthen the sovereignty of each union republic:

... the union of socialist republics should be abandoned and strengthened; - wrote Lenin, - there can be no doubt about this measure. We need it, just as the world communist proletariat needs it to fight the world bourgeoisie and to protect it from its intrigues (ibid., P. 360).

Lenin's letter was read out at a meeting of the heads of delegations to the 12th Congress of the RCP (b) (April 1923), his instructions formed the basis of the resolution of the congress "On the National Question" (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/bse/ 61364 / Autonomy).

What did Putin mean?

From the words of Vladimir Putin, it is unambiguously unclear whether he criticized Lenin or the plan of Stalin's autonomy, but judging by his other statements, the criticism was still directed at Lenin for his ideas of the complete independence of the republics. After all, it was on this basis that the leadership of the republics was subsequently formed with the dominance of the titular nation of residence in them. This served as the basis and historical basis for the future collapse of the USSR, and one of the stages in the development of this process, that very fuse bomb, was the appointment to leading posts in these republics, first of all, on the basis of belonging to the titular nation, and not on the basis of high managerial professionalism. This is how clannishness and "elite" isolation were formed in the republics, which were already largely lagging behind in their historical and cultural development.

On the other hand, today the Eurasian Union is developing as an association of equal states that respect the sovereign rights of the countries that are part of it. Why is the criticism of Vladimir Putin then aimed at Lenin, and not at Stalin?

http://pics.v6.top.rbk.ru/v6_top_pics/resized/550xH/media/img/7/98/754533853098987.jpg

The fact is that not only the historical conditions are different - today we live in a new informational state, in the conditions of the changed logic of social behavior (read about it), but also the informational-algorithmic state of the supersystem "Russia" is different.

At that time, the basis of information and algorithmic support for the communists and those who joined them was Marxism. It was the common language in which the political forces of that time communicated with each other: Troccysts, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, bureaucrats, expressing often opposite ideals, values and goals in it (read about the difference between them). The problem with Marxism was that it did not allow them to differentiate between themselves, since it was in many ways an indefinite language, which was clearly expressed in the "hobby" of the Soviet intelligentsia "to read between the lines."

Today the situation is somewhat different. The Russian civilization has its own Concept of the structure of social life, an alternative to the Western one, the core of which is a fairly general theory of control, which is a universal language of interdisciplinary communication, since all processes in the Universe can be described as processes of self-government or control. This new information and algorithmic support allows different political groups to differentiate according to their ideals, values and goals, and the whole society as a whole - to develop goals and methods for achieving them, shared by all social and political groups, that is, to consolidate efforts.

Lenin's doormat

Different phenomena of the life of society must be characterized in such a way that their differences and interrelationships are understandable, and accordingly they must be called by different names. These definitions, which distinguish different phenomena of social life from each other, make it possible to look differently at what happened in the USSR during the Stalin era, where:

according to the general opinion, a new social structure, different from all historically known by that time, was built and called itself "socialist", focusing on the communist perspective;
Marxism was the theoretical basis for its construction, and a cult basis.

The first circumstance, as such, does not cause controversy. The attempt to build a new society is recognized by everyone, although the very ideals that sincere supporters of socialism strove to implement in the period 1917 - 1953 are assessed by different people in different ways:

or - an unrealizable chimera, contrary to human nature, as a result of which an attempt to implement them in life is evil, and carries nothing but violence and suffering (in short, a slave barracks, a kind of fascism, a mistake in history);
or - the objectively possible best future of all mankind, for its implementation requires subjective factors - the development of culture and purposeful work, in which both mistakes and abuse are possible, sometimes with very grave consequences for both contemporaries and descendants.

For supporters of the opinion that the USSR arose as a result of a mistake in history in 1917 and its entire history was a mistake, the discussion of the circumstances associated with Marxism as such and with Stalin's interpretation of it in his multifaceted activities is of no interest.

But supporters of the opinion that in 1917 history did not make a mistake, having laid the foundation for the open practice of building socialism and communism in the USSR and around the world, argue about who was the true Marxist and communist in the USSR: J.V. Stalin and his associates , or LD Bronshtein (better known under the nickname "Trotsky") and his associates? In relation to modernity, among the adherents of Marxism, this dispute turns into a question: is the resumption of the building of communism a continuation of the cause of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky, or a continuation of the cause of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin?

The answer to these questions is multifaceted and lies in the fact that:

the true Marxist was L. D. Bronshtein, who, due to the managerial failure of the philosophy and political economy of Marxism, was a pseudo-communist and died as a hostage to the falsity of Marxism, which he did not realize;
VI Lenin (Ulyanov) was a true communist to the extent that he had the ability not to be a psychtrotskyist (read about this phenomenon), faithful to the canons of Marxism, in an adamant readiness to press the course of life in accordance with them;
JV Stalin was a true Bolshevik and a communist, as a result of which he was not a Marxist;
J.V. Stalin was the successor of the political line not of Marx-Engels-Lenin, but the successor of the political line of Bolshevism of Stepan Razin-Lenin (in that component, when V.I. Lenin stepped over Marxism), since V.I. Lenin under cover Marxism built the RSDLP (b) party as an instrument of implementing the political will of Bolshevism, in principle capable of becoming conceptually autocratic (which actually happened when the ruling party and statehood of the USSR was headed by J.V. Stalin), and then completely go beyond the limits of Marxism ...

Lenin largely shared the ideas of the world socialist revolution using "orange" methods, while Stalin's plan to build socialism in a single country, killing the "demon of permanent revolution", in Lenin's eyes looked like an anti-advertisement of his plans to reorganize the world.

https://www.proza.ru/pics/2014/02/07/2209.jpg

We think that Stalin also believed that the entire planet in the future would live under socialism, but he saw this process as gradual, developing on the basis of demonstrating his own example, and not permanently revolutionary rape of other countries.

This approach is similar to the true Christian:

Save yourself, thousands around you will be saved.

Or the saying of Mahatma Gandhi:

We ourselves must be the changes we want to see in the world.

A compromise that gave a loophole

http://gvizdivtsi.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SU-2.jpg

As a result, the creation of the Soviet Union was a compromise between Stalin and Lenin. After lengthy discussions, a draft union treaty was drawn up.

The union center retained the functions of a common foreign policy, a common economic space, and the building of a unified armed forces. Also, a single union citizenship was introduced for all.

The republican authorities retained priority in resolving a number of domestic policy issues. Lenin also managed to push through the provision on the republics' right to self-determination and secession from the Union.

http://mypresentation.ru/documents/ea030dac60fb06a178830dbd2dcfb074/img54.jpg

It is a pity that Stalin, when he came to power, did not throw these Leninist postulates out of the union treaty. Apparently, he believed that he had managed to build in the country the very unitary state that he wrote about in 1922. And the intra-union borders, national authorities and the provision on a possible withdrawal were for Stalin an empty legal norm that had no real meaning.

So Joseph Vissarionovich fell into the very trap that he himself once wrote about. While the state built by Stalin was strong, the nationalists sat with their tails between their legs. But as soon as the central government gave up in the late 1980s, these separatists, with the informational support of Western forces, taking advantage of the constitutional right to withdraw from the united country, immediately began to destroy the united state.

The tragic ending for the Soviet Union came in the winter of 1991, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. Although the purely legal norms of secession from the USSR were not observed by any of the republics, and the original of the Belovezhsky messages was lost (http://ria.ru/world/20130207/921787298.html), and they themselves could not be the basis for the loss Union of its legal status.

The Soviet Union played a huge, positive role for the peoples inhabiting it. There was an unprecedented development of the Baltic States, which became a kind of ceremonial showcase of the Soviet Union and where the standard of living was not much lower than in the leading states of the West.

In Latvia alone, the Soviet government invested $ 1.3 billion a year - in the construction of new enterprises, schools, hospitals and other social infrastructure. But the Soviet Union was not only equipping the Baltic states.

http://img0.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/c/4/81/217/81217888_3f06b2939bd6055699ed0e18990.jpg

Take the republics of Central Asia. What were they before the Soviet regime? In essence, they were wild lands, where medieval customs reigned with an appropriate level of development of culture and economy (often at the level of the primitive communal system). A downtrodden, illiterate, impoverished population, over which not even state law reigned, but solely the whim of local feudal lords.

Soviet power, one might say, brought civilization to this region.

Take Tajikistan, for example. The Soviet Union created more than 90 industries here, 3070 industrial enterprises, of which 434 are large (on an independent balance sheet). Among them, the mining and chemical plant, which produced nuclear products for defense enterprises throughout the country, mining enterprises, the Khojent (then Leninabad) silk plant - a highly mechanized enterprise, whose products were in great demand all over the world; plant "Tajiktekstilmash", which produced modern automatic machine tools; powerful cable, transformer, cement and slate plants; dozens of enterprises in the light, food and meat industries; large hydroelectric power plants that meet the needs of the national economy and the life of the population with electricity, etc.

Roughly the same can be said about the Transcaucasian republics, where the local industry was also created from scratch. Thus, the economy of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic was widely supported by powerful monetary subsidies from Moscow (often at the expense of Russian regions). The average salary here was much higher than in the country as a whole. Moscow, on the other hand, fully financed the construction of the Georgian industry (for example, the automobile plant that produced the famous Kolkhida trucks).

But the most prosperous industrially was undoubtedly Ukraine. Here is a reference taken from modern historical data:

Only during the years of the first Soviet five-year plans did the Ukrainian SSR become a powerful industrial power. The largest factories were built, equipped with modern technology (Zaporizhstal in Zaporozhye, Azovstal in Zhdanov, Krivoy Rog metallurgical in Krivoy Rog, Kharkov Tractor), many mines and other enterprises. One of the largest in the world Novo-Kramatorsk machine-building plant was put into operation, as well as other machine-building plants in Donbass, Kharkov, Odessa and other cities. The chemical, machine-building and metal-working industries were created anew on a new technical basis.

In 1940, all industrial products republic accounted for about 18% of the all-Union and increased in comparison with 1913 by 7.3 times, and the production of heavy industry more than 10 times, and 92% of all Ukrainian production was obtained at enterprises built and reconstructed during the years of Soviet power ...

In 1958, Ukraine surpassed all European countries in iron smelting, and in 1957 it surpassed all the capitalist countries of the world, including the United States, in its per capita production. Steel Ukraine gave as much as France and Italy combined. Thus, by the end of the 80s, Ukraine had become an industrial power with a diversified industry and the largest union base not only in coal, metallurgical and Food Industry, but also mechanical engineering, chemistry, electricity ...

Who was nobody became everything

It is especially worth dwelling on the cultural and educational transformations in the Soviet republics (by the way, among many Soviet peoples, the culture itself, including the alphabet, in general, appeared only through the efforts of the communists). In the same Georgia, due to subsidies from Moscow, higher education developed so much that Georgians had the largest percentage of university graduates per hundred people in comparison with all other Soviet republics. In this regard, the Georgians were only slightly inferior to the inhabitants of the Baltics, Ukrainians and Belarusians.

In addition, the government of the USSR encouraged the development of national literature, theater and cinema in every possible way.

http://demotivation.me/images/20111117/384yr13pkfc7.jpg

It is thanks to the Soviet regime that millions of people - first throughout our vast country, and then throughout the world - learned the books of the Kyrgyz Chingiz Aitmatov, the Ukrainian Pavlo Zagrebelny, the Belarusian Ales Adamovich, the Uzbek Yavdat Ilyasov, the Moldovan Ion Druta. It was thanks to the Soviet regime that Georgian and Baltic cinema gained well-deserved fame.

And in general, we then had a whole film industry, which in terms of its scale and popularity in the world can only be compared with Hollywood. From almost every famous film festival, our filmmakers - including directors from the Union republics - brought the most prestigious awards, and more than one!

It seems to us that the best thing about the level of the cultural revolution in the Soviet Union was said by one ideological enemy of the communists, a former officer of the Vlasov Russian Liberation Army Leonid Samutin, who in his memoirs was forced to admit:

The Bolsheviks took away from the peoples the right to national independence, development and identity, - said in our Manifesto. But in our battalions of the ROA there were Tatars, and Uzbeks, and Tajiks, and Belarusians, and representatives of the Caucasian peoples. And they all knew perfectly well that it was during the Soviet regime that they received their own writing, and their newspapers, literature, the opportunity to develop their own, national art. The only thing that was "taken away" from them was the dominance of local religions, bays, khans and kulaks. These "national forms of development" were really covered up by the Soviet government ...

This is what the "cruelty" of the Soviet regime was.

Faded for a long time

Today the former Soviet republics that have gained "independence" are a truly pitiful sight. The former level of culture and education has been virtually eliminated here. Economics is no less a sad sight.

https://retina.news.mail.ru/prev670x400/pic/aa/c7/image23653291_f6b3ac291ed35937f9645600a9f9e05f.jpg

Thus, the volume of Ukrainian industry is decreasing from year to year. Before the Maidan, experts predicted that in 10-15 years the republic would finally "eat up" its former Soviet reserves and turn into a backward agricultural country, but the Ukrainians surpassed their expectations. Almost the same thing happened with Georgia - its industrial potential today is only 16% of the former Soviet level, and the population mainly lives on products grown on their own land plots.

But in Tajikistan there was nothing left at all! The factories are actually in ruins or have been converted into hotels and markets, and the main income of the population is the earnings of migrant workers sent from Russia, and the business of reselling Afghan heroin ...

As for the once flourishing Baltic, its position was vividly described in her letter by one of its inhabitants using Estonia as an example:

The republic increasingly began to have problems with the economy. There is no more industry here. The entire once powerful fishing fleet is sold out. Plants for precision instrument making and electrical engineering were privatized and ceased to exist. In fact, agriculture has been ruined. A country that once produced excellent meat and dairy products, is now importing food from abroad!

In the first years of independence, Estonia still retained some luster due to the sale of state property, the resale of oil, timber, non-ferrous metals, which came mainly from Russia, but now this financial stream is drying up. The country begins to live exclusively at the expense of subsidies from the European Union and the United States, but even there they begin to show dissatisfaction and more and more often ask our rulers the question - when will you learn how to make money yourself? "

And so Stalin called for a merciless fight against nationalism. He noted that local national cadres often forget that they live in a single multinational state.

Local nationalism was expressed, first of all, in alienation and distrust "to the measures coming from the Russians." And only then, Stalin emphasized:

This defensive nationalism often turns into offensive nationalism ... All ... types of chauvinism ... are the greatest evil that threatens to turn some national republics into an arena of squabbles and squabbles.

A similar picture became a reality after the abolition of the USSR. The supreme power, possessing the necessary will and strength to establish and subsequently maintain order, is gone. In the localities, nationalism flourished, and the struggle for adjacent territories began to dominate in the policies of the new governments.

In Chechnya, a bandit "state" was formed, a criminal regime was established (http://www.blog.servitutis.ru/?p=724).

Conclusion

All these fragments of the former Soviet Union, alas, could not organize themselves into fully independent states, since their "elites" lived, and many still live according to the principle of "take power - have fun", and they have nothing to do with the people and development, and therefore they can exist only at the expense of outside infusions. Who replaced Moscow in this role Western world turned out to be much less generous. And therefore, these fragments are clearly waiting for an unenviable future in the bosom of Western civilization ...

However, today in the post-Soviet space, the process of reintegration of the fragments into a new community, potentially more extensive, is actively underway, since its unity is intertwined not on the basis of any ideology, as it was in the Soviet Union, but on the basis of common methods of solving problems.

And Russia is in many ways the initiator of this process, which is reflected in the fact that the methods of integration based on equality and mutual respect within such associations as the Eurasian Union, BRICS, SCO are fixed in the “Strategy national(!) security of the Russian Federation "(http://kremlin.ru/acts/news/51129):

Ensuring national interests is facilitated by the active foreign policy of the Russian Federation, aimed at creating a stable and sustainable system of international relations based on international law and based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, mutually beneficial cooperation, political settlement of global and regional crisis situations.

From the point of view of nationalists, such provisions infringe on the nation that they predict "the best of the rest", since this is precisely what nationalism is expressed, from which there is only one step to Nazism - the implementation of a specific policy of suppression of other "worse" nations.

For people with a developed national identity, who understand and preserve the characteristics of their people, but not to the detriment of other peoples, but with respect for their national identity, such principles of integration are not only acceptable, but in many respects are the only possible ones to preserve themselves in the face of a unifying mass the culture of Western civilization, which grinds any peoples into a single faceless mass, but decorated with artificial primitive subcultures.

So nationalism can always only be petty-bourgeois.

http://ipress.ua/media/gallery/full/e/v/evraziya.jpg

To keep in touch latest news and help promote this information:

Join the Vkontakte group:

Nation-building. Formation of the USSR

In a country where 57% of the population were non-Russian nations and nationalities, the national policy of the Bolshevik Party was of great importance.

Outlining its contours in the pre-October period, the leaders of the RSDLP (b) proceeded from two Marxist postulates:

about the fundamental impossibility of solving the national question under capitalism. Only the revolutionary transformation of bourgeois society into a socialist one could ensure, according to the Marxist concept, the overcoming of class antagonisms, and then national contradictions - right up to the merger of nations. "National features of peoples, - F. Engels asserted," ... will inevitably mix and thus disappear in the same way as all kinds of estate and class differences will disappear due to the destruction of their basis - private property ";

the subordination of the policy of Marxists in the field of interethnic relations to the key task - the struggle of the proletariat for state power.

This view of the correlation between national and political factors formulated an outwardly contradictory, but from a "class" point of view, a logically harmonious and impeccable position of the Bolsheviks on the national-state question. On the one hand, at the Second Congress (1903), they willingly adopted the Marxist thesis about the right of nations to self-determination, later strengthening its explosive nature in relation to the foundations of imperial power with another right - to secession and the formation of independent states. On the other hand, V. I. Lenin and his associates saw the future proletarian state as a "single and indivisible Russian republic with firm power", since it was precisely the "centralistic" form of state structure that created, in their opinion, the optimal economic and socio-political conditions for building socialism and melting down in the foreseeable future of nations into one supranational community. In other words, the Russian revolutionary Marxists were then talking about a unitary state - a single state, subdivided only into administrative-territorial units (counties, provinces, etc.).

However, in this, too, the Bolsheviks were far from dogmatic constraint. In 1913, without abandoning the idea of a unitary state, they allowed the possibility of holding “broad regional autonomy” within its framework in order to ensure “equality of all nations and languages” (autonomy is self-government of a part of the territory of a single state with the right to issue local laws) ... Shortly before October 1917, in a situation of a rapid rise in the national consciousness of the peoples inhabiting the country, V.I. federation is a form of state structure in which the federal units that are part of the state - republics, states, lands - legally have a certain independence, have their own constitutions, legislative, executive, judicial bodies; along with this, federal bodies of state power are formed, common citizenship is established, monetary system, etc.). It is important, however, to emphasize that even after that Lenin continued to view the federation only as a form of transition to a "completely unified state", a unified, "centralist-democratic republic" dictated by the specific conditions of multinational Russia.

The federal principle, like the right of peoples to freely decide the question of joining the Soviet federation, was legislatively enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Workers and Exploited People (January 1918), and then in the Constitution of the RSFSR.

What principles of nation-building were the basis for the creation of the USSR?

National-state construction was the most important part of the policy of the Bolsheviks. Of course, there was an objective basis for the restoration of a single state. education in Russia. The especially close interconnection of the economies of different regions pushed them towards unification. Moreover, in the years of civil. wars took place as bilateral treaties between the independent republics and the RSFSR, and the entry of the republics and ed. regions in the RSFSR.
Military threat from the imperial. Powers insistently demanded that all the republics conduct a single foreign policy and strengthen their defenses. Also after civ. war reigned devastation and poverty, which can be overcome only with mutual assistance of the regions. For example, the RSFSR needed oil from the Caucasus, coal from Donbass, and the Caucasus needed Ukrainian bread, metal, etc.

Fundamentals of the national-state construction projects are reflected in the "Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People" (November 1917), which is based on: the right of nations to self-determination, equality and sovereignty of peoples, free development of nations, minorities, socialist federation, etc.
Rapprochement with the RSFSR began initially on a contractual basis. So, on June 1, 1919, the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee formalized the contractual relations of the RSFSR with Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia and Lithuania. In April 1920 Azerbaijan was annexed, in November 1920 - Armenia, and in February 1921 - Georgia. Treaties were also concluded with the People's Soviet Republics in 1920-1921. - Khiva, Bukhara, Tuva, etc. It should be noted that the situation in most of these republics was extremely difficult. Internal and external instability gave rise to a desire to unite with a strong ally who could bring order.

For 1919-1920. three forms of autonomy were characteristic: ed. republic, ed. work. commune, ed. region. Of these, ed. the republic is the highest form, because it had the highest authorities and administration, its own constitution and governments. system and even in some cases its armed forces. The last two forms of autonomy had the status of provinces. In general, ed. formations within the RSFSR began to be created at the end of 1917, for example, the Estland Labor Commune. Prepared under the leadership of Stalin, the project assumed the Soviet republics to become part of the RSFSR. IN AND. Lenin rejected this project and insisted on accepting the idea of the formation of the USSR on the basis of the equality of all "independent" Soviet republics and the observance of their sovereign rights.
Russian-speaking enclaves were especially interested in restoring the unitary state. For the Russian population, the restoration of the state was, as it were, the acquisition of national dignity, the restoration of the familiar world.

By 1922, there were 7 authors in the RSFSR. republics (Bashkir, Gorskaya, Crimean Tatar, Kirghiz, Yakutsk and Turkestan Soviet Socialist Republic); 2 labor. communes (Volga and Karelian Germans) and 8 auth. region (Komi, Kalmyk, Mari, etc.).
The process of creating a union state was supposed to demonstrate a complete break with the past. The actions and policies of the Bolsheviks in this matter were characterized by ambivalence. True to the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination, the Bolsheviks laid the national principle as the basis for the formation of the USSR. The republics retained the attributes of statehood: Councils of People's Commissars, People's Committees, the Central Executive Committee, the Central Committee of the National Communist Parties, and others. Part of the powers were given to the center. authorities. The question of Russian statehood was discussed. The borders of the autonomous republics were often determined without taking into account the nat. factors. The task was to eliminate the inequality of nations through the development of industry in the backward regions and the imposition of a socialist culture.

The act of establishing the USSR was an agreement concluded between the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasian Federation (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan), signed on December 27, December 30. 1922 The Treaty was approved by the 1st All-Union Congress of Soviets. In 1922-1929. continued development of the foundations of the state. devices, which, after numerous discussions, were formulated in the new Constitution adopted on January 31, 1929. As a result of the unification, the territory became suitable for normal life, traditional economic ties were restored, life was revived on the basis of NEP. And it's clearly positive

Presentation of the 9th grade student b Goncharenko Inna

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

· The USSR occupied 1/6 of the inhabited land area and was the largest country in the world in terms of area;

Consisted of union republics (in different years from 4 to 16), according to the Constitution, were sovereign states.

Initially, according to the Treaty on the formation of the USSR, the USSR included:

Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic,

Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic,

Belarusian Socialist Soviet Republic (until 1922 - the Socialist Soviet Republic of Belarus, SSRB),

· Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.

(1919-1990)

The principles of nation-building were the basis for the creation of the USSR

Military threat from the imperial. Powers insistently demanded that all the republics conduct a single foreign policy and strengthen their defenses. Also after civ. war reigned devastation and poverty, which can be overcome only with mutual assistance of the regions. For example, the RSFSR needed oil from the Caucasus, coal from Donbass, and the Caucasus needed Ukrainian bread, metal, etc.

Rapprochement with the RSFSR began initially on a contractual basis. So, on June 1, 1919, the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee formalized the contractual relations of the RSFSR with Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia and Lithuania. In April 1920 Azerbaijan was annexed, in November 1920 - Armenia, and in February 1921 - Georgia. Treaties were also concluded with the People's Soviet Republics in 1920-1921. - Khiva, Bukhara, Tuva, etc. It should be noted that the situation in most of these republics was extremely difficult. Internal and external instability gave rise to a desire to unite with a strong ally who could bring order.

For 1919-1920. three forms of autonomy were characteristic: ed. republic, ed. labor. commune, ed. region. Of these, ed. the republic is the highest form, because it had the highest authorities and administration, its own constitution and governments. system and even in some cases its armed forces. The last two forms of autonomy had the status of provinces. In general, ed. formations within the RSFSR began to be created at the end of 1917, for example, the Estland Labor Commune. Prepared under the leadership of Stalin, the project assumed the Soviet republics to become part of the RSFSR. IN AND. Lenin rejected this project and insisted on accepting the idea of the formation of the USSR on the basis of the equality of all "independent" Soviet republics and the observance of their sovereign rights.

Russian-speaking enclaves were especially interested in restoring the unitary state. For the Russian population, the restoration of the state was, as it were, the acquisition of national dignity, the restoration of the familiar world.

The process of creating a union state was supposed to demonstrate a complete break with the past. The actions and policies of the Bolsheviks in this matter were characterized by ambivalence. True to the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination, the Bolsheviks laid the national principle as the basis for the formation of the USSR. The republics retained the attributes of statehood: Councils of People's Commissars, People's Committees, the Central Executive Committee, the Central Committee of the National Communist Parties, and others. Part of the powers were given to the center. authorities. The question of Russian statehood was discussed. The borders of the autonomous republics were often determined without taking into account the nat. factors. The task was to eliminate the inequality of nations through the development of industry in the backward regions and the imposition of a socialist culture.

However, real shifts in the development of economic reform took place only in 1990, when laws on small enterprises, joint-stock companies, joint ventures and commercial banks appeared. As a result, the number of non-state enterprises began to grow rapidly. Despite the persistence of high taxes on profits (from 35 to 45%), the laws of 1990 created conditions for the development of commercial structures. Until the end of 1991, the issue of land that actually belonged to local Soviets and collective farms, which hindered the development of farms, was still not resolved, which was one of the reasons for the decline in agricultural production.

The main goal of the economic reform is to make the economy responsive to the constantly changing and developing needs of society, able to effectively implement the achievements of scientific and technological progress and respond to any manifestations of creative initiative.

It was supposed to carry out the transfer of all enterprises and institutions to self-financing and self-financing; to rebuild the organizational structures of management in the center of the development of the cooperative movement, various forms of movement of lease and contract. The task was set for the financial recovery of the economy, which required a reform of pricing, putting things in order in the budget, in the financial and credit system and the activities of banks. At the same time, it should be noted that a unified, fully thought-out program of economic transformations was not adopted. The basis for acceleration, the key to the successful implementation of the five-year plan was the creative activity of the masses, a turn towards high-quality performance indicators, an increase in labor productivity and savings in material resources.

Economic transformations, an attempt to transfer industry to market relations led to a decline in production (in 1990 - by 2%, in 1991 a drop in GDP from 6% to 10%, and in some industries - by 20 - 25%), a drop in the living standards of the main the masses, the development of inflationary trends. But despite all the negative tendencies that occurred during and after the reforms, these economic reforms were of considerable importance for the transition to modern market relations and turned out to be the most significant step for the complete rejection of the country's socialist development.

The principles of foreign policy of the USSR in the 60s - 70s.

The main tasks in the foreign policy of the USSR in the 60s. consisted in providing favorable conditions for solving the problems of communist construction. The efforts of the USSR were aimed at strengthening the unity of the socialist countries, expanding cooperation with developing countries, and developing the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. But at the same time, the strategic task in foreign policy was still the "pulling" of countries on the socialist path and all-round cooperation with such countries, but with the leading role of the USSR.

Cooperation of the socialist countries was most clearly manifested in the field of economic relations. The CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) was the center of economic cooperation. In the early 60s. the composition of the CMEA participants increased.

An important means of boosting the economies of the CMEA member countries was the co-operation of efforts in the construction of large national economic facilities. An example of such cooperation was the laying of the Druzhba oil pipeline, which runs through the territory of 5 CMEA member states: the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and the German Democratic Republic. Soviet oil allowed the CMEA countries to provide the chemical and other industries with the necessary raw materials. The USSR also supplied these countries with gas, iron ore, timber, mining equipment, cars, tractors, etc. The CMEA countries imported into the USSR ships, agricultural machinery, machine tools and mechanisms for the chemical, light and food industries, railway wagons, etc. All this testified to the effectiveness of trade ties. Since the beginning of the 60s. the joint construction of industrial enterprises on a compensation basis was developed. The construction took place with the credit participation of the CMEA countries. Loans were reimbursed through the supply of products produced at these enterprises.

In 1964, the International Bank for Economic Cooperation (IBEC) was formed, which replaced the system of bilateral settlements based on the principle of equality of mutual supplies and payments with the fact that all funds for trade turnover go through the IBEC by transferring funds from one country's account to another. Later, in order to concentrate funds from the CMEA countries for capital construction, the International Investment Bank (IIB) was organized.

Much attention was paid to the contacts of the CMEA countries in the scientific and cultural fields. Strengthening the military might of the countries of the socialist community was of great importance. Joint military exercises were held, officers were trained in the USSR for the socialist countries. At the meetings of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Pact member states, the most important international issues were resolved.

But with all the above factors, the relationship between the socialist countries was far from equal. Any attempts by the socialist countries to carry out reforms to democratize society were suppressed by the USSR at times even in the most cruel way. Examples of such “suppression” are the entry of troops of 5 socialist countries into Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the 10-year war in Afghanistan (1979 - 1989).

In the early 70s. the foreign policy of the USSR was aimed at implementing the Peace Program, which was manifested in the expansion of economic relations with capitalist countries. There were shifts in relations between the USSR and the USA, the FRG, long-term agreements on economic, technical and industrial cooperation were concluded with a number of Western European states. Moreover, the economic ties of the socialist countries with the capitalist countries were often to the detriment of the CMEA.

The meeting of the heads of 35 countries in Helsinki in 1975 was of great importance, at which the socio-economic and military-political situation prevailing in the world at that time was legalized and recorded. The inviolability of borders, territorial integrity, etc. were recognized. Much attention was paid to issues related to human rights.

However, everything positive at the meeting in Helsinki was crossed out in 1979 by the decision of the Soviet government to invade Afghanistan. As a result, the prestige of the USSR as a peace-loving state was undermined.

So, the foreign policy of the USSR in the 60s - 70s. was quite controversial. Undoubted successes were achieved, but at the same time serious mistakes were made. The Soviet government paid too much attention to ideological dogmas, and not to real universal human values.

Significance of the international meeting of heads of 35 countries in Helsinki in 1975

In the first half of the 70s. the foreign policy of the USSR was aimed at implementing the Peace Program, which was manifested in the expansion of economic relations with bourgeois countries. There have been shifts in relations between the USSR and the United States, a historic turn in the development of relations between the USSR and the FRG took place. Long-term agreements on economic, technical and industrial cooperation were concluded with a number of Western European states. Summit meetings were held regularly.

A new phenomenon in economic relations with capitalist countries was the conclusion of long-term contracts and agreements on a compensation basis. They stipulated that, on the basis of credit, the capitalist countries supply the USSR with equipment for the development of mineral deposits and for the construction of industrial enterprises. Loans are reimbursed by deliveries of products created at these enterprises. All this, no doubt, spoke eloquently about the fact that the world in the 70s. passed to the phase of peaceful coexistence of countries and to economic cooperation for the benefit of each country, but, naturally, each country acted in its own interests.

By the mid-70s. there were all the conditions for holding an all-European conference on security issues. Preparations for the meeting took place in Helsinki from 1973 to 1975. In July-August 1975, the Final Act of the meeting was signed, in which the heads of 33 European states, as well as the USA and Canada, took part. This act fixed and legalized the socio-economic and economic-military situation prevailing in the world at that moment. The inviolability of borders, territorial integrity, etc. were recognized. Also the most important are the important new provisions on human rights. Were proclaimed: freedom of conscience; human rights to know and act on their rights; freedom to leave the country and the right to return to it; the right to just Judas; and other democratic human rights.

The participation of the USSR in this international conference, and even more so the signing of the Final Act, imposed a certain responsibility on the government for their implementation in the USSR and in international relations. As for the articles related to human rights, how would the human rights movement in the USSR be legalized, which received a kind of legislative basis, although in the USSR in practice this was far from true. The authorities tried to suppress the work of human rights defenders, the wave of the dissident movement caused an uninterrupted chain of courts, exiles, and hospitalization

But despite all the negative trends in the USSR, the international meeting in Helsinki carried many positive aspects and successes in attempts to establish peace and freedom in countries and in preparing a real democratic movement, especially in the late 88s - 90s.

The introduction of troops from 5 socialist countries to Czechoslovakia in 1968, the war in Afghanistan in 1979 - 1989.

In the second half of the 60s. significant shifts took place in the foreign policy of the USSR. Among them was the positive process of easing the tension in the international situation in the face of a real threat of nuclear war. But at the same time, the strategic goal of the Soviet leadership in the 60s - early 80s. (the establishment of a significant and decisive role in the world) has not changed.

It should be noted that the USSR in this period, in its practice with the socialist countries, somewhat departed from the previous practice of a dominant position over them. In these countries, economic reforms began to be carried out, which in fact did not correspond to the "classical" ideas about communism. All socialist countries, including the USSR, strove to establish economic ties primarily with the developed capitalist countries, and even to the detriment of ties within the CMEA.

However, with all the above factors, the increase in political and economic independence, the relationship between the socialist was far from equal, the USSR still determined the main directions of the activities of its allies. Any attempts to social. countries to carry out deep reforms to democratize society were suppressed by the USSR at times even in the most brutal way. Examples of such "suppression" are the entry of troops of 5 socialist countries into Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the 10-year war in Afghanistan.

Let's consider these events in more detail. The intention of the leadership of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Communist Party of Czechoslovakia) led by A. Dubcek alerted the Soviet leadership. With a view to directing Czechoslovakia “on the true path”, in 1968 the leaders of the communist parties of the socialist countries met with insistent recommendations not to carry out deep reforms. There was pressure on the government of Czechoslovakia. And as a result, from 20 to 21 August 1968, the troops of the USSR, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic were introduced into the territory of Czechoslovakia. President of Czechoslovakia L. Svoboda called on citizens not to resist the invading troops. After an attempt to create a pro-Moscow government, the Kremlin was forced to negotiate. The Brezhnev government threatened Czechoslovakia with a military clash in case of rejection of Moscow's conditions. And as a result of increased pressure from the Kremlin, the new course of Czechoslovakia was curtailed. And although the boundaries of the socialist camp were preserved, a split occurred in the communist movement. In my opinion, this was an unacceptable violation of the rights of this state and the USSR had no right to do so. The world democratic community negatively perceived the dictatorial actions of the USSR.

Also terrifying is the Soviet policy towards Afghanistan, which led to a 10-year bloody war with a huge number of dead and wounded. The prestige of the USSR as a peace-loving state was undermined, and distrust of the USSR grew. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan shocked the world. This was an attempt by the Soviet government to get another ally in the East, of which it was confident as a result of the coup in Afghanistan and the proclamation of it as a Democratic Republic with the aim of building socialism. But all this was without sufficient support in the country and the readiness of the people for such changes.

So, we can conclude that the above events were further confirmation of the deepest crisis of the system, which it could not overcome. The government of the USSR often sacrificed the interests of its people for its global goals of conquering a dominant position in the world and expanding the number of countries that make up the so-called socialist camp. I think that the actions of the Soviet government in such matters were ill-considered and cruel, since they entailed human sacrifices and violated the basic democratic principles - the right of nations to self-determination and freedom in choosing their development, which, no doubt, is unacceptable.

Reasons for the collapse of the USSR in 1991

Since the mid-80s. The structural crisis in the USSR encompassed all spheres: economic, socio-political, spiritual, power and management. There was no longer any doubt that the dominant political system (the power of the CPSU) could not ensure not only social progress, but also stability in general. USSR by the beginning of the 90s. stood on the verge of global changes, and this process was virtually irreversible.

"Perestroika" proclaimed by M. Gorbachev gave a significant impetus to the development of reform activities, and, no doubt, largely accelerated the transition to another stage of social development, i.e. transition from the socialist model of development to the capitalist one. The most important achievements of perestroika were democratic processes, the development of glasnost, etc.

In my opinion, the reasons for the collapse of the USSR include: lack of feedback in industry and agriculture; loss of national values; irrational use of material resources; collapse of the CMEA; the confusion of the broad masses of the population - all this became fertile ground for the actions of political forces interested in the collapse of the USSR as a single state.

The adoption of the law on public associations legalized the multi-party system and stimulated the process of forming political parties. In March 1991, the official registration of party parties began.

1991 brought a new aggravation in the situation in the country, strengthening of centrifugal tendencies within the USSR. The growing contradictions between the republics, the desire for sovereignty and independence have been observed since the mid-80s. Interethnic relations have become aggravated.

The delineation of the functions of the center and the republics was of great importance in defusing interethnic tension. The republics increasingly began to ignore the decisions of the center. Despite the adoption of such democratic acts as the Law of the USSR “On the Delimitation of Powers between the USSR and the Subjects of the Federation,” etc. More and more republics expressed their desire to secede from the USSR. The new conditions required the definition of new norms of relations between the union republics. In 1991, there was an attempt by the leadership to replace the 1922 treaty with a new union treaty. But they were not crowned with success, tk. contrary to the law, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia left the USSR. Ukraine also refused to sign a union treaty

In order to disrupt the signing of this Treaty, a part of the top party and state leadership tried to seize power (the August 1991 putsch). After the defeat of the putsch, mass demonstrations against the CPSU took place in many large cities, which actually completely suspended its activities.

So, there were no influential forces in society capable of preserving the USSR.

In December 1991, representatives of 3 republics (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus) signed an agreement on the commonwealth of independent states / CIS /. It was signed in Minsk by B. Yeltsin, L. Kravchuk, S. Shushkevich.

In the spring of 1989 - in the summer of 1990. it became obvious that the reforms within the existing system are stalled and have no effect. The standard of living was falling: there was a shortage of goods, coupons for important products, which was a vivid indicator of the state of the country.

Non-state educational institution higher professional education

Institute of Management, Arkhangelsk

Severodvinsk branch

Department of Economic Disciplines

Faculty: economic

COURSE WORK

by discipline

History of public administration

Formation of the USSR

Student: A.V. Bolotov

Course: first, group: 36-GZS

Supervisor:

Associate Professor Novikova E.S.

Severodvinsk - 2014

Introduction

Political crisis in the spring of 1921

1.1 Urban Kronstadt rebellion, its various assessments

The policy of exit of the enlightened party of the RCP (b) from the political crisis

on the ways of the NEP. The essence of the NEP and its fate

3. The formation of the USSR in 1922 as a natural process for the creation

centralized state

3.1 Prerequisites for the formation of the USSR

3.2 The internal political situation after the end of the Civil War

3.3 Stalin's and Lenin's projects of the USSR

4 X All-Russian Congress of Soviets

Formation of the USSR and nation-building

1 The first stage of Federated Relations

4.2 Forms of federation of republics

4.3 Stages of formation of the USSR

4.4 Plans for the further unification of the Soviet republics

4.5 Preparatory work for the I Congress of Soviets of the USSR

6 Adoption of the Declaration and the Treaty on the formation of the USSR

7 Composition of the 1st Congress

8 Georgian conflict. Strengthening separatism

5. Development of the USSR

1 Formation of a young state

5.2 Development and adoption of the Constitution of the USSR

3 The entry of the republics into the USSR

4 Reasons for the formation of the USSR

5 The importance of the formation of the USSR

6 Financial and economic development

7 Social and cultural significance

8 National state structure

9 Positive and negative aspects of association

Sunset at dawn USSR

Conclusion

References

INTRODUCTION

The centuries-old history of the Russian Empire has created a special model of interethnic relations. It was formed on the basis of mutual assistance in the development of the economy and culture. The economy of all regions of the country was united by a single all-Russian market: grain and coal of Ukraine, products of ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy of the Urals, cotton of Central Asia, products textile industry Moscow and Moscow region, timber and oil of Siberia, oil of Azerbaijan, products of the Volga region.

The splash of the national liberation movement also revealed the injustice, mistakes and crimes accumulated over the centuries in relations between the authorities and the population of the outskirts, between large and small nations. The enmity between them was introduced by the policy of implanting Orthodoxy among the non-Russian population, the Russification of schools and office work, the patronage of Russian settlers in the outskirts and the transfer of the best lands. The protest was provoked because of the abuses of most of the Russian officialdom, heavy extortion, restriction in the rights of entire peoples. Black Hundred organizations, anti-Semitism, pogroms were common attributes of the social and political life of tsarist Russia.

The Aurora's salvo turned the history of Russia in a new direction.

The October Revolution is considered by many to be a peasant uprising aimed at redistributing land. After the revolution, a number of autonomous and independent national republics arose on the territory of the former Russian Empire.

The peasant reform of 1861, during which the peasants received freedom, but did not receive land, provoked the discontent of the peasants, which turned into a civil war.

Literally all the peoples inhabiting the territory of the former Russian Empire took an active part in the civil war. One of the slogans that roused the masses to the war was the slogan of national self-determination.

During the civil war, the RSFSR and other republics defending the gains of the revolution, incl. their national independence, entered into a number of 2-sided agreements with the creation of a close military-political union.

The Bolsheviks who won the civil war gave land to the peasants. Great changes awaited the young Soviet republic. The state leadership did not want to lose the lands of Ukraine, Transcaucasia and Central Asia. It became urgently necessary to create a new state model that could meet the requirements of the new time.

Strong ties have been established between the republics. For the establishment of the union of nations, there were the necessary conditions: the peoples in close unity made a revolution. They had a common goal - socialism.

Under an agreement signed in November 1920, a number of state bodies of the RSFSR and Azerbaijan were united in the spheres of defense, economy, foreign trade, food, transport, finance and communications. In late 1920 - early 1921, the RSFSR entered into similar two-sided agreements with Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Georgia. This became an important stage in nation-building.

The appearance of the USSR on the political map of the world was not a fact of the emergence of an absolutely new state. Even then they said: "This is the Russian Empire in a new form." The novelty was that it was a state with a new type socio-economic relationships.

The state with parliamentary republics eventually became the most powerful state of an authoritarian regime with a socialist ideology.

The formation of the USSR became a natural result of the development of society for the next 74 years.

1. The political crisis in the spring of 1921

1.1 Urban Kronstadt rebellion, its various assessments

Neither the brilliant victories in the civil war, nor the heroism of its participants saved Soviet Russia from a general and deepest crisis, the peak of which falls at the end of 1920 - beginning of 1921.

The bulk of Russia's industrial potential was put out of action, economic ties were severed, and there was a shortage of raw materials and fuel. The country produced only 2% of the pre-war amount of pig iron, 3% of sugar, 5-6% of cotton fabrics, etc. The industrial crisis has led to unemployment.

By the end of 1920, the position of the ruling Communist Party in Russia began to deteriorate rapidly. The multimillion Russian peasantry, having defended the land in battles with the White Guards and interventionists, more and more persistently expressed their unwillingness to put up with the economic policy of the Bolsheviks, which worsened any economic initiative. The workers were dissatisfied with the lack of food and basic necessities, the peasants were dissatisfied with the surplus appropriation system. Discontent spilled over into a chain of popular anti-Bolshevik uprisings. In late 1920 - early 1921 peasant uprisings broke out in the Volga region, on the Don, in the Western and Eastern Siberia, in the Urals, in Belarus, Karelia, Central Asia. The entire might of the regular Red Army was thrown into the suppression of peasant uprisings.

Also a difficult situation developed in Petrograd. The norms for the issuance of bread were reduced, some food rations were canceled, and there was a threat of hunger. In February 1921, a workers' strike began in Petrograd. Troops were used to disperse it. Some of the workers were shot, but the unrest continued.

At the end of February, sailors and Red Army men of Kronstadt, the largest naval base Baltic Fleet. On February 28, the sailors of the battleships "Petropavlovsk" and "Sevastopol" called a meeting and adopted a resolution, which was submitted for discussion by representatives of all ships and units of the Baltic Fleet.

Freedom of speech and press in favor of "workers, peasants, as well as anarchists and left-wing socialists."

Release of all political prisoners.

Equalization of rations for everyone except workers in hot shops.

Ending violent confiscations of non-hired artisans.

The ability for peasants to "do whatever they want with their land."

In the resolution adopted on March 1, the demands of the Kronstadters posed a serious threat to the Bolsheviks' monopoly on political power. The purpose of the resolution is to call on the government to respect the rights and freedoms proclaimed by the Bolsheviks in October 1917.

Having learned about the adoption of the resolution of the sailors of "Petropavlovsk", the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Kalinin left for the city of Kronstadt. He was kicked out of there under the whistle of 12 thousand sailors, who were joined by at least half of the 2 thousand communists of Kronstadt. The party's central committee hastened to christen the uprising as a counter-revolutionary conspiracy, incited from the West by the White Guards and led by a tsarist general, supported by the Cadets, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.

In March 1921, the bootmakers organized the Provisional Revolutionary Committee, entirely composed of sailors of working and peasant origin. The committee was headed by Petrichenko, a clerk from "Petropavlovsk". 2 military commissars of Kronstadt were arrested, and the acts of violence ended there. But several military officers on the base disagreed with the Provisional Committee. The officers wanted to establish contact with the "mainland" as soon as possible so that the uprising spread to the capital. The committee refused to use weapons, except for defense in the event of an attack.

The Soviet government sent an ultimatum to the Provisional Committee, in which it guaranteed life to those who were ready to surrender.

The situation was very serious for the party:

The Bolsheviks were opposed by the sailors of the Baltic Fleet and the garrison of the fortress, which, even in the most difficult times, remained their reliable bastion.

Amazing unanimity in the ranks of the rebels, stubbornness, anger and despair with which they fought against the Bolsheviks, their readiness to die, but not to back down from their demands.

The appeal of the rebels could be supported not only by the Petrograd workers, but also in the Ukraine and in the center of Russia, where the peasant revolts of Makhno and Antonov had not yet been suppressed. But that did not happen.

To defeat the Kronstadters, an army was sent under the command of M.N. Tukhachevsky. Trotsky instructed General Tukhachevsky to suppress the uprising. To suppress the uprising, the general recruited young cadets from the military school who did not have "revolutionary experience" and soldiers from the special troops of the Cheka.

And on March 11, it was announced that 93 Petrograd enterprises were closed, and 27 thousand workers turned out to be on the street.

After the capture of the sea military base thousands of people were repressed. But the official trial never took place over them.

2. The policy of the exit of the enlightened party of the RCP (b) from the political crisis along the lines of the NEP. The essence of the NEP and its fate

On the night before the opening of the X Congress of the Party, government forces made an attempt to storm Kronstadt<#"justify">3. The formation of the USSR in 1922 as a natural process for the creation of a centralized state

.1 Prerequisites for the formation of the USSR

Ideological premises... The October Revolution of 1917 led to the collapse of the Russian Empire. The disintegration of the former unified state space, which had existed for several centuries, took place. However, the Bolshevik idea of a world revolution and the creation of a World Federative Republic of Soviets in the future forced a new unification process. An active role in the deployment of the unification movement was played by the RSFSR, whose government was interested in the restoration of a unitary state on the territory of the former Russian Empire.

Territorial prerequisites.The young state, torn apart by the consequences of the civil war, faced the acute problem of creating a single administrative-territorial systems. At that time, the RSFSR accounted for 92% of the country's area, the population of which later amounted to 70% of the newly formed USSR. The remaining 8% were divided among themselves by the republics of the Soviets: Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasian Federation.

National policy of the Bolsheviks... The national policy of the Soviet state contributed to the growth of confidence in the central government. It was based on the principle of equality of all nations and nationalities and the right of nations to self-determination, enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia (November 2, 1917) and the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People (January 1918). Beliefs, customs, national and cultural institutions of the peoples of the Volga region and Crimea, Siberia and Turkestan, the Caucasus and Transcaucasia were declared free and inviolable, which caused an increase in confidence in the new government not only from the foreigners of Russia (who constituted 57% of the population), but also in European countries and Asia. Poland and Finland took advantage of the right to self-determination in 1917.

The TSFSR played an important role in the formation of the USSR. For all Russians, the economic union of all 3 Transcaucasian republics was important. This association sparked a heated debate. The main issue of the dispute was the principles of the NEP and the unification of states. The NEP demanded the restoration of state unity on the basis of a confederation. A unified administration of the Transcaucasian railways was organized. But the Bolsheviks underestimated the national question. A policy of forced rapprochement and unification of nationalities began. In July 1922, the FSSSRZ project was proposed. At the same time, the main powers remained in the hands of the republics. It was a union based on confederations.

At the end of August, Stalin proposed a draft in which he proposed "... to adapt the form of relations between the centers and the outskirts to the actual relations, by virtue of which the outskirts in everything must, of course, obey the center ...".

Throughout the rest of the territory of the former Russian Empire, national governments fought for national independence during the Civil War (Ukrainian Central Rada, Belarusian Socialist Gromada, Turkic Musavat Party in Azerbaijan, Kazakh Alash, etc.).

Political premises... In connection with the victory of Soviet power on the main territory of the former Russian Empire, another prerequisite for the unification process arose - the unified nature of the political system (the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of Soviets) and similar features of the organization of state power and administration. In most republics, power belonged to the national communist parties. The instability of the international position of the young Soviet republics in the conditions of capitalist encirclement also dictated the need for unification.

Economic and cultural background... The need for unification was also dictated by the historical commonality of the destinies of the peoples of the multinational state, the presence of long-term economic and cultural ties. Historically, an economic division of labor has developed between different regions of the country:

the industry of the center supplied the regions of the southeast and north, receiving in return raw materials - cotton, timber, flax;

the southern regions were the main suppliers of oil, coal, iron ore, etc.

The importance of this division increased after the end of the Civil War, when the main task became clear:

restoration of the destroyed economy;

overcoming the economic backwardness of the Soviet republics.

Textile and wool factories, tanneries, printing houses were transferred from the central provinces to the national republics and regions, doctors and teachers were sent.

The GOELRO (electrification of Russia) plan, adopted in 1920, also provided for the development of the economy of all regions of the country.

3.2 The 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 a radical party with communist views. The war ended in complete ruin in the economy, enterprises did not work, agriculture was severely undermined, despite the distribution of land to the peasants. The state of transport communications and communication systems was especially alarming for the new government. The Russian empire was tied by railways and telegraphs, and the absence of those threatened a real collapse of the state.

Lenin, Trotsky and other leaders of the Bolsheviks studied in schools and universities and knew very well the history, which taught that states collapsed when the central government ceased to control local authorities.

Moscow's fears were confirmed by the dynamics of the activity of the republican authorities, which began to independently conduct foreign policy in their republics. The republics established full-fledged diplomatic relations with Germany, Poland, Turkey and other European countries. Although these steps were approved by Moscow, it was obvious that in the future the republics would consider conducting an independent foreign policy as their inalienable right. By this time, the internal independence of the republics was already high enough. Ukraine stood out, whose leadership, without hesitation, defended the economic interests of its republic.

Lenin and Stalin understood that if the process went on like this, then the final disintegration new Russia it will be a matter of time. Their work on the creation of a union state was aimed at suppressing separatist tendencies in the republics.

Both leaders had different views on the construction of the future state:

if Lenin believed that the republics should be given a certain set of freedoms;

then Stalin rigidly gave his preferences to the centralized state.

I.V.'s preferences Stalin had good reasons for themselves also because he perfectly understood that society after the civil war is like a raging sea, which even without wind will not calm down soon. Therefore, this society should be placed in a rigid framework, otherwise a new round of civil war will not be avoided.

In addition, I.V. Stalin, by his upbringing and his inclinations, was an authoritarian personality and did not tolerate manifestations of disobedience. Stalin's whole life was spent in structures where discipline and diligence were highly valued, and it does not matter whether it was a theological seminary or a group of militants preparing to rob the Tiflis bank.

3.3 Stalin's and Lenin's projects of the USSR

The political line of V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin changed throughout her life. The leaders were, first of all, politicians who realized that "one should speak correctly and act as needed." That is, you can say any slogans and make promises to the masses, but in real politics you should only make carefully considered decisions. This was clearly manifested in the position of V.I. Lenin regarding the choice of the state structure of the future USSR. On the eve of the Second Congress of the RSDLP, Lenin specially dwells on the national question in several of his articles in the newspaper Iskra. In his article “On the Manifesto of the Union of Armenian Social Democrats,” he, while supporting the slogan of self-determination of nations, categorically opposes federalism and focuses on the rapprochement of peoples. At that time, Lenin was an opponent of the federation, considered it a bourgeois institution and recognized territorial-national autonomy only as an exception. After the congress, the Bolsheviks and, above all, Lenin, had to fight against federalism in the Social Democratic Party and, at the same time, against the principle of cultural and national autonomy.

And 10 years after the Second Congress, Lenin remained a principled opponent of the federal system. In this respect, a letter to S.G. Shaumyan of December 6, 1913 from Lenin, who considered it necessary to write the following words: “We are for democratic centralism, of course. We are for the Jacobins against the Girondins ... In principle, we are against the federation - it weakens the economic connection, it is an unsuitable type of one state. Do you want to separate? Get lost to the devil if you can cut the economic connection. Autonomy is our plan for the organization of a democratic state. " At the same time, which has long been noted in the research literature, in articles devoted to the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. Lenin emphasized that concrete historical conditions may dictate the need for federation with the aim of a democratic solution of the national question.

Already during the years of the Civil War, a final change in the views of V.I. Lenin on the essence of the federation, as a method of state structure. It was clear that it would be very difficult to keep the republics within unitary Russia, and it would be much better to grant them the status of republics, even if this status would be largely fictitious. But there will always be an opportunity in the future to increase the independence of the republics in economic and foreign policy issues. V.I. Lenin on the structure of the USSR reflects his views.

Lenin's project was not one; at the same time, there was a project developed by the group of I.V. Stalin, reflecting the idea of \ u200b \ u200bthe state structure.

In the spring and summer of 1922, the party organizations of Ukraine, Belarus and Transcaucasia, discussing ways of close unification with the RSFSR, turned to the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with a request to develop the principles and forms of a unified Soviet state. A commission of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) was organized from representatives of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of the republics. The chairman of the commission was I. V. Stalin, who since the creation of the 1st Soviet government was also head of the People's Commissariat for Nationalities.

During the work of the commission I.V. Stalin put forward a plan of "autonomization", which provided for the entry of the Soviet republics into the RSFSR as autonomous republics. At the same time, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars and the STO of the RSFSR remained the highest bodies of state power and administration.

Stalin's plan of "autonomization" was the natural outcome of the struggle between those who under the communist flag went to isolationism and separatism and those who sought to achieve the unity of the republics under the auspices of the central Moscow government. As separatist sentiments intensified among the national communists, the positions of the centralist wing of the party also grew stronger. The idea of uniting the republics as autonomous entities within the RSFSR, which, in addition to I.V. Stalin was defended by V.M. Molotov, G.K. Ordzhonikidze, G. Ya. Sokolnikov, G.V. Chicherin and others, matured not only in the higher echelons of power, but also advanced at the lower levels of the state apparatus and had many supporters among the communists of the outskirts.

The project was approved by the party leadership of Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Transcaucasian Regional Committee of the RCP (b).

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia came out “against”, stating that unification in the form of autonomization was premature, the unification of economic and general policy is necessary, but with the preservation of all the attributes of independence. In fact, this meant the formation of a confederation of Soviet republics based on the unity of military, political, diplomatic and, in part, economic activity.

The Central Bureau of the Communist Party of Belarus as a whole, without opposing the resolution, spoke in favor of contractual relations between the independent union republics.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine did not discuss the project, proceeding from the principle of Ukraine's independence.

The situation changed when, on September 23, 1922, representatives of the republics were summoned to a meeting of the commission of the Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the issue "On the relationship between the RSFSR and the independent republics." Already on the 1st day for the project I.V. Stalin was voted on by representatives of all republics, with the exception of the abstaining representative of Georgia. On September 24, all controversial issues were settled - the center made some concessions. The republics were allowed:

have their representatives on the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee;

coordinate the appointment of authorized all-Union People's Commissariats;

to appoint to the foreign missions of the people's commissariats of foreign affairs and their representatives of foreign trade.

The People's Commissariat of Finance from the all-Union was transferred to the category of the Union-republican. The commission accepted the draft as a basis and recommended it to the plenum of the Central Committee.

IN AND. Lenin, who was ill and could not take part in the work of the commission, but rejected the idea of autonomization. On September 26, 1922, he sent a letter to the members of the Politburo, in which he sharply criticized the "autonomization" project and formulated the idea of creating a union of equal Soviet republics. He suggested replacing the formula for the republics' entry into the RSFSR with the principle of their “unification together with the RSFSR” in the union Soviet socialist state on the basis of complete equality.

October 1922, the Plenum of the Central Committee approved the position of V.I. Lenin and adopted a new resolution on its basis.

3.4 X All-Russian Congress of Soviets

December 1922, the Plenum of the Central Committee adopted the draft Union Treaty.

During December 1922, the congresses of the Soviets of Belarus, Ukraine and the TSFSR adopted resolutions on the formation of the USSR and elected delegations to the I All-Union Congress of Soviets.

The X All-Russian Congress of Soviets met on December 23, 1922. It was attended by over 2 thousand delegates with casting and deliberative votes.

JV Stalin made a report on the formation of the USSR. He read out a draft resolution, approved by the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and including the provisions that were adopted by the congresses of other republics: voluntariness and equality of the republics, with each of them retaining the right to freely withdraw from the Union.

4. Formation of the USSR and nation-building

During the civil war, 2 forms of national statehood developed:

Federation based on autonomy

Federation based on a confederation

The form of federation began to take shape on the basis of the cohesion of other nations. The unification began to take place on a military basis, in the form of a confederation.

The decisive political condition for unification was the unity of their political system - as a result of the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat was established in all republics. The transition to NEP only increased the objective need for the unification of the republics.

At the X Congress of the Party, Stalin made a speech. He spoke about the need to overcome the socio-cultural and economic inequality of peoples. He expressed the idea that chauvinism and local nationalism are the same danger for communist internationalism. The report was heavily criticized. At the same X Congress, Stalin proposed to end the national question forever and proposed an administrative redistribution of Russia.

The change in boundaries did not go very smoothly. When considering the issues of economic zoning of the country and national issues were not taken into account.

A policy of forced rapprochement and unification of nationalities began. In July 1922, the FSSSRZ project was proposed, in which the main powers remained in the hands of the republics. The union was to become on the basis of confederations.

The Bolsheviks rarely reckoned with the national question and the opinion of people who did not agree with the general course of the party. As a result of the voluntary-compulsory basis, the USSR began to consist of 6 republics - the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR and the ZSFSR.

4.1 The first stage of federal relations

The majority of peoples had an understanding of the commonality of their historical destinies, the need to preserve the union in order to achieve freedom and national development. Already during the years of the civil war, the search for new forms and principles of relations between the Soviet republics began. Formed military-political union ((of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus). In the future, Lenin considered it possible for other republics to join the Russian Federation on the basis of autonomy or the conclusion of an interstate union: “We want a voluntary union of nations - a union that would not allow any violence of one nation over another - such an alliance that would be based on a policy of trust, on a clear consciousness of fraternal unity, on a completely voluntary basis. ”In 1919, at the VIII Party Congress, he emphasized that in national relations“ one cannot act according to one template. ”In the letter to S. Ordzhonikidze on March 2, 1921, Lenin noted: “both internal and international conditions of Georgia require Georgian communists not to use the Russian template ...” In December 1920 - January 1921, the agreements of the RSFSR with Ukraine and Belarus were renewed. coordination in the field of defense, foreign trade, in the management of the most important sectors of the economy. Joint commissariats were created. whether to the highest authorities of the RSFSR (All-Russian Central Executive Committee, economic people's commissariats). Representative offices of the Soviet republics under the government of the RSFSR were opened in old mansions in Moscow. With the establishment of Soviet power in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, similar agreements were concluded with them. The interstate union was becoming a new type of federation. But, like the first (in the form of autonomy), it was considered by the Bolshevik Party as a transitional form to the future complete unity of the working people of different nations, which will lead to the victory of socialism on a world scale. The VII Congress of Soviets (December 1919), welcoming the formation of the III Communist International, expressed confidence that "the future form of international state community will be the international Soviet republic." This prospect frightened off the supporters of strengthening the national statehood. At the same time, it carried within itself the threat of the onset of centralism and unitarianism.

From Khiva and Bukhara Soviet people's republics contracts were concluded on the basis of their complete independence and independence.

On the other hand, the party and state bodies of Russia, assuming the functions of government on behalf of all the republics and following the traditions of the past, did not pay due attention to the interests of other states. This was manifested in the desire to impose appropriation schemes everywhere (by the People's Commissariat for Food), to attack private capital (VSNKh), to use only Russian in office work and in court (People's Commissariat of Justice), etc. Much was unfair with the failure of taxes, the redistribution of finances. Arrogance, intolerable in relations between peoples, manifested itself in the resolution of the VII All-Russian Congress of Soviets (December 1919) "On oppressed nations", which expressed "sympathy" for the working masses of the former borderlands who had left Russia and achieved national independence.

In the memory of the peoples of Transcaucasia, the Red Army's campaign to help local Bolshevik forces remained. As a result, the national governments, which proclaimed the independence of the republics in 1918, were overthrown, the already adopted constitutions were abolished, Soviet power was established (in Azerbaijan - in April 1920, Armenia - in November 1920, in Georgia - in February 1921).

In an open letter (May 1921) addressed to Lenin, the Georgian writer K. Gamsakhurdia rebelled against the new colony of the overseas policy of Soviet Russia in the Transcaucasus (“Russian template”), writing: “Has it really not become obvious to everyone today that it is no longer possible erase national nuances and colors? "

The Civil War Syndrome was still strong. The rebel movement that persisted at the beginning of 1921 in the North Caucasus (Gotsin rebellion in Dagestan), in North Asia (Basmachism), in Yakutia (Jewish pogroms) warned that sparks of interethnic contradictions could burst into flames. Fearing this flame, the Bolshevik party rejected the slogan with which it went to the revolution - about the right of nations to self-determination. The very term "self-determination" was banished from propaganda, viewed as opportunistic and reactionary.

4.2 Forms of federation of republics

Creation of autonomies. The practice of federation (unification) of the first years of Soviet power consisted in the creation of autonomies in the Russian Federation for:

national;

territorial;

economic basis.

In the striving of the republics to strengthen their sovereign rights, a number of party workers, incl. and People's Commissar I.V. Stalin saw the main obstacle to unity. They considered the creation of independent national republics as a solution to purely temporary political problems. Therefore, in order to avoid nationalistic tendencies, the task was to create the largest possible territorial associations, which was reflected in the creation of the Lithuanian-Belarusian Soviet Republic, the Tatar-Bashkir Soviet Republic (TBSR), the Mountain Republic, the Turkestan ASSR (which existed for a relatively short time). Later, in the course of the struggle against Pan-Turkism, the TBSR and the Buryat-Mongol Autonomous District were disbanded.

Forms of autonomies. In 1918-1922. predominantly small and compactly living peoples surrounded by the Great Russian lands received autonomy of 2 levels within the RSFSR:

Republican - 11 autonomous republics (Turkestan, Bashkir, Karelian, Buryat, Yakutsk, Tatar, Dagestan, Gorskaya, etc.);

Regional autonomy was received by 10 regions (Kalmyk, Chuvash, Komi-Zyryansk, Adygea, Kabardino-Balkarian, etc.) and 1 autonomous Karelian labor commune (since 1923 an autonomous republic).

Contractual relations between the republics. Theoretically independent Soviet republics entered into contractual relations with the RSFSR. In 1918 the Council of People's Commissars recognized the independence of the Estland Soviet Republic, the Soviet Republic of Latvia, the Lithuanian Soviet Republic, in 1920 - the Byelorussian Soviet Republic, the Azerbaijan SSR, the Armenian SSR; in 1921 - the Georgian SSR. In 1920-1921. after the defeat of national governments and the completion of the process of Sovietization of the national outskirts, two-sided agreements on a military-economic alliance between Russia and Azerbaijan, a military and economic alliance between Russia and Belarus, alliance agreements between Russia and Ukraine, Russia and Georgia are concluded. The last two unification agreements did not include the unification of the activities of the people's commissariats of foreign affairs.

Discussion in the RCP (b) on issues of state unification. The Bolsheviks viewed the federation as a transitional stage on the eve of the world revolution, as an indispensable step on the path to union and overcoming national differences. The project, developed by Stalin in the summer of 1922, and known as the autonomization plan, provided for the entry of the independent republics into the Russian Federation as autonomies. Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of Ukraine Kh.G. Rakovsky reacted negatively to the Stalinist project. IN AND. Lenin also condemned Stalin's hasty actions and spoke out against excessive centralism, for the need to strengthen the sovereignty and attributes of the independence of each republic as a prerequisite for the rallying of peoples. He proposed the form of a federal union as a voluntary and equal association of independent Soviet republics, which alienated, on an equal footing, a number of the republics' sovereign rights in favor of all-union bodies.

4.3 Stages of formation of the USSR

The civil war, and especially foreign intervention, demonstrated the need for a defensive alliance. On June 1, 1919, a decree was signed "On the unification of the Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus for the fight against world imperialism." A centralized military command was approved (the Revolutionary Military Council of the RSFSR and the Commander-in-Chief of the Red Army), the republican industries were united into economic councils, transport, and finance and labor commissariats (RSFSR People's Commissariats). The united financial system was managed from Moscow. National military formations were completely subordinate to the High Command of the Red Army. The military-political unity of the Soviet republics played a huge role in the defeat of the combined forces of intervention.

After the conclusion of the decree, representatives from each republic were delegated to the composition of state authorities. This state formation went down in history under the name of the "contractual federation". The peculiarity is that the Russian governing bodies began to represent the unified supreme power of the state. The communist parties of the republics became part of the RCP (b) only as republican party organizations.

The emergence and growth of confrontation. All this soon led to the emergence of disagreements between the republics and Moscow. Having delegated their main powers, the republics were deprived of the opportunity to make decisions on their own. The independence of the republics was officially declared only in the sphere of government. Uncertainty in defining the boundaries of the powers of the center and the republics led to the emergence of conflicts and confusion. Often the state authorities looked ridiculous, trying to bring to a common denominator a nationality whose traditions and culture did not know anything (for example: the need to introduce a subject for studying the Koran in the schools of Turkestan gave rise to an acute confrontation between the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the People's Commissariat for Nationalities in October 1922).

The conclusion of the organizational and economic union. Immediately after the creation of a new union of republics, representatives of Ukraine, Belarus, the Transcaucasian republics entered the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the RSFSR, with the beginning of the unification of some people's commissariats. As a result, the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the RSFSR actually turned into a governing body for the industry of all republics. In February 1921, the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR was created, headed by G.M. Krzhizhanovsky, also called upon to lead the implementation of a single economic plan. In August 1921, the Federal Committee for Land Affairs was created in the RSFSR, which regulated the development of agricultural production and land use throughout the country.

Creation of a commission on relations between the RSFSR and the independent republics. Since the spring of 1921, in response to V.I. Lenin on the economic unification of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the creation of the Transcaucasian Federation began, organizationally taking shape in March 1922 (TSFSR).

The decisions of the central authorities in the economic sphere did not find proper understanding among the republican authorities and often led to sabotage. In August 1922, in order to radically reverse the current situation, the Politburo and the Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) considered the issue "On the relationship between the RSFSR and the independent republics", creating a commission, which included republican representatives. V.V. was appointed chairman of the commission. Kuibyshev.

The commission instructed I.V. Stalin to develop a project for the "autonomization" of the republics. In the presented decision, it was proposed to include Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia in the RSFSR, with the rights of republican autonomy. The draft was sent to the republican Central Committee of the party for consideration. This was done only to obtain formal approval of the decision. Given the significant infringement of the rights of the republics provided for by this decision, I.V. Stalin insisted, if the Central Committee of the RCP (b) was adopted, not to publish it in the media. And he demanded from the republican Central Committee of the parties to strictly implement the decision.

Creation of V.I. Lenin's concept of the state based on the Federation. Ignoring the independence and self-government of the subjects of the country, with a simultaneous tightening of the role of the central authorities, was perceived by Lenin as a violation of the principle of proletarian internationalism. In September 1922, he proposed the idea of creating a state on the principles of a federation. Initially, the name was proposed - the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia, later it was changed to the USSR. Joining the union was supposed to be a deliberate choice of each sovereign republic, based on the principle of equality and independence, under the general government of the federation. IN AND. Lenin believed that a multinational state should be built based on the principles of good neighborliness, parity, openness, respect and mutual assistance.

4.4 Plans for the further unification of the Soviet republics

The end of the war and the transition to a peaceful revival made new demands on the union of sovereign Soviet states. The economic devastation prompted the need to restore the interrupted economic ties between regions and enterprises, the transition to a single currency, the establishment of the unimpeded movement of goods. The economic blockade by the capitalist states, the policy of diplomatic non-recognition, and the constant military threat presupposed a closer coordination of forces. It was also necessary to take into account the historical tasks that faced all the peoples of Russia at the turn of the century - the modernization of society, active involvement in world economic and spiritual ties, the protection of geopolitical interests. It was better to solve them by joint efforts.

February 1922 All Soviet republics signed an agreement on the transfer of the RSFSR's right to represent their interests at the European Economic Conference in Genoa. This was a new step towards diplomatic unification. In the summer of 1922, the leaders of the Transcaucasian republics, and then Ukraine and Belarus, raised the issue of streamlining economic relations. Many questions have accumulated related to claims against the central authorities of Russia.

Unified forms of statehood (Soviets), a unified ruling party (Bolsheviks), unified armed forces (Red Army), the accumulated experience of management from a single center of management suggested ways to strengthen the union.

The advantages of this path were proved by the experience of the advanced capitalist states, not divided by national barriers with a multinational population. The leadership of the RSFSR also began to gradually turn to this experience. It was also based on the accumulated 3-year experience of the Russian Federation itself. Stalin regarded autonomy as "the only expedient form of alliance between the center and the outskirts." He considered this form quite flexible, capable of reflecting different levels of development of a particular people. But without fail as part of the "united proletarian state", without fail along one path - Sovietization, the dictatorship of the proletariat. He believed that the meaning of the national question in the Soviet Republic boils down mainly to overcoming the difference in the development of individual peoples. Accordingly, various forms of federation were supposed to provide an opportunity for backward peoples to catch up with the one that had gone ahead. Central Russia... The advancement of such a standard deprived the peoples of the right to choose other paths of movement towards progress. At the 10th Party Congress (March 1921), in a report on the immediate tasks of the party in the national question, Stalin concluded that "the federation of Soviet republics is that sought-after form of state union, the living embodiment of which is the RSFSR."

But other options were ripening as well. Ukraine, as the most developed republic, was hatching a proposal to create a confederation, i.e. this type of contractual relationship, under which the full control of internal affairs in the republic was preserved. Belarus, although less consistently, also advocated the preservation of the existing contractual relations of the independent republics. The position of the Transcaucasian republics was different. They already had the experience of uniting into a federal union (in March 1922), and then into the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The motives for such a union were clear - to smooth over acute interethnic conflicts, economic revival, and expanding external relations. However, the complex processes of coordinating the efforts of the three republics that began, caused different reactions in the republics, especially in Georgia, which was burdened by the federation. During the years of independence, the positions of nationalist parties and movements, the church, and the national intelligentsia have strengthened. This explains the restraint of the leadership of the TSFSR in response to proposals to join the RSFSR. Particularly irreconcilable positions were taken by the party and state authorities in Georgia.

To develop plans for the rapprochement of the Soviet republics, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) in August 1922 created a special commission chaired by Stalin. It included representatives of all republics. Stalin's proposal for all other Soviet republics to become part of the RSFSR (the so-called autonomization plan) was supported by the members of the commission. Stalin rejected the proposal to create in the future a legislative body of the upper house with representation from nationalities as allegedly "incompatible" with Soviet construction.

Lenin took a more restrained position. He took into account a number of factors that forced not only not to speed up this process, but also make maximum concessions on the part of the RSFSR to other republics. The ambition of the rapidly emerging national political elites, the outbreak of national self-awareness in the new republics, and the remnants of great-power chauvinism in the activities of the administrative apparatus made him think about the need to search for a more compromise form of union. In a letter to the Politburo on September 26, 1922, he proposed creating a "new union, a new federation", "a new floor, a federation of equal republics." The central union bodies would have an equal attitude towards all republics, including the RSFSR. The new union did not encroach on the sovereignty of individual Soviet republics, but strengthened it through collective support. The commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), then the Plenum of the Central Committee of the party (October 6, 1922) heeded these recommendations, making a decision to create the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. However, the already launched mechanism of "autonomization" continued to gain momentum.

Lenin noted with alarm the haste and administration in the unification process that had begun, and its enormous costs. On December 30, he dictated: "I seem to be deeply guilty before the workers of Russia for not intervening energetically enough and rather sharply in the notorious question of autonomization, officially called, it seems, the question of the union of Soviet socialist republics." His conclusion was that "apparently, this whole idea of" autonomization "was fundamentally wrong and untimely." He proposed to unite only a minimum of departments within the USSR, leaving the leadership of all other industries in the republics. The possibility was suggested, in the light of future experience, to return back to the previous form of agreement, i.e. the unification of only the military and diplomatic departments. Lenin once again returned to Stalin's personal qualities as a politician, noting his haste, administrative enthusiasm, and anger against those who held different views. This could threaten in the future with dire consequences.

However, the warnings of the seriously ill leader were ignored. The formation of the USSR according to the Stalinist version was in full swing.

Soviet socialist state

4.5 Preparatory work for the I Congress of Soviets of the USSR

The resolution of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) said:

"1. Recognize it necessary to conclude an agreement between Ukraine, Belarus, the Federation of the Transcaucasian Republics and the RSFSR on their unification into the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, leaving each of them the right to freely withdraw from the Union.

The "Union Council of People's Commissars" appointed by the "Union CEC" shall be considered the executive body of the "Union CEC".

The decision of the October (1922) Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), drawn up on the basis of the instructions of V.I. Lenin, was the basis for all subsequent work on organizing the USSR. During November ÷ December 1922, the Communist Party and its Central Committee, as well as the party organizations of the republics in accordance with the instructions of V.I. Lenin did a lot of work to prepare the formation of the USSR and develop its constitutional foundations. The main attention was focused on resolving practical issues, determining the structure of the state bodies of the USSR and preparing the corresponding state acts.

November 1922, a commission elected by the October Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) discussed the issue "On the procedure for conducting questions about the unification of Soviet republics into the Union of Republics." To develop drafts of the Fundamentals of the Constitution and the Treaty on the Unification of the Republics, the commission formed a subcommittee chaired by G.V. Chicherin. At the same meeting, the proposal put forward by V.I. Lenin's proposal “on the establishment of an institute of several chairmen of the Union Central Executive Committee (according to the number of uniting units) with their alternate chairmanship”, as well as the proposal of M.I. Kalinin on the structure of the highest bodies of state power and administration of the USSR.

November 1922, the subcommittee decided to take as a basis the draft theses on the Union Constitution, proposed by G.V. Chicherin and D.I. Kurskiy. The subcommittee approved the name of the union state - "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", fixed the right to secede of the union republics from the Union and a single union citizenship. On November 28, the Central Committee commission approved the draft of the subcommittee. On November 30, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) as a whole approved the main points of the Constitution of the USSR presented by the commission. After that, at the meetings of the commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on December 5 and 16, a number of practical issues related to preparations for the Congress of Soviets of the USSR were resolved, and the draft Treaty and Declaration on the Formation of the USSR were approved. The commission decided - these documents will form the Basic Law of the USSR. On December 18, a number of issues related to the work of the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR were considered by the Politburo of the Central Committee. On the same day, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), having discussed the same issues, decided that the I Congress of Soviets of the USSR would only basically approve the Declaration and the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR, after which they would be discussed and ratified by the Central Executive Committee of the Union republics, and then finally approved by the II Congress of Soviets of the USSR. To guide the preparations for the Congress of Soviets, the Plenum of the Central Committee formed a commission. At the meeting of this commission on December 20, it was finally decided to name the union state "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". On December 28, the subcommittee approved the edited text of the Treaty on the formation of the USSR, as well as the draft resolution of the I Congress of Soviets of the USSR presented by D.I. Kurskiy. This completed the preparatory work on the education of the USSR.

4.6 Adoption of the declaration and agreement on the formation of the USSR

December 1922, a conference of representatives of the plenipotentiary delegations of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasian Federation met in Moscow. They discussed and approved the draft Declaration and Treaty on the formation of the USSR, as well as the procedure for the work of the First All-Union Congress of Soviets.

The congress was opened by the oldest delegate, a member of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Petr Germogenovich Smidovich, a participant in 3 Russian revolutions, a party member since 1898, V.I. Lenin did not attend the congress due to illness, but, nevertheless, was elected its honorary chairman. The working chairman of the congress was M.I. Kalinin.

The agenda included only 3 issues - a separate consideration of the Declaration and Treaty on the formation of the USSR (approved the day before by the delegations of 4 uniting republics) and the elections to the Central Executive Committee of the USSR.

The main report of the congress was made by I.V. Stalin. According to him, the old period was ending when the Soviet republics, with all their joint actions, nevertheless went apart, dealing with the issues of their existence, and now a new period begins to unite the republics into a single union state. At the same time, he stressed that the new period testifies to the desire of the Soviet government to develop into a serious international force capable of changing the international situation in the interests of the working people of the whole world. Stalin described the opening day of the congress as "the day of the triumph of the new Russia over the old one, over Russia - the gendarme of Europe, over Russia - the executioner of Asia."

Then the floor was given to M.V. Frunze, who proposed to accept the Declaration and the Treaty as a basis, instructing the Central Executive Committee of the USSR to submit these documents for additional discussion to the Central Executive Committee of the Union republics, in order, taking into account their amendments and proposals, to develop the final text of the basic law of the union state and submit it for approval by the II All-Union Congress of Soviets ...

The most important historical documents of the congress were the Declaration and the Treaty.

The Declaration spoke about the split of the world into 2 camps:

camp of capitalism;

camp of socialism.

In the capitalist camp, national enmity, colonialism, national oppression, the tangle of national contradictions there become more and more entangled, and the bourgeoisie is powerless to establish cooperation between peoples. Only the Soviet camp under the dictatorship of the proletariat can radically destroy national oppression. Only in this way was it possible to repel the attacks of the imperialists of the whole world, both internal and external. The instability of the international situation gives rise to the danger of new attacks and therefore a united front of the Soviet republics is needed in the face of the capitalist encirclement. Unification into one socialist family is also prompted by the very structure of Soviet power, which is international in its class nature. Voluntary unification and equality of peoples with the possibility of access to the Union of other socialist republics, incl. and which may arise in the future. Each republic was also guaranteed the right to freely secede from the Union. The creation of the Union was seen as an important step towards the unification of the working people of all countries into the World Socialist Soviet Republic.

economic;

ideological: “Ruined fields, stopped factories, destroyed productive forces and emaciated economic resources inherited from the war make the individual efforts of individual republics in economic development insufficient. The restoration of the national economy turned out to be impossible given the separate existence of the republics. The very structure of Soviet power, international in its class nature, pushes the working masses of the Soviet republics onto the path of unification into one union state, capable of ensuring external security, and internal economic prosperity, and freedom of the national development of peoples. "

The Declaration also highlighted factors such as international association republics and internal. Emphasis was placed on the international structure of Soviet power. The Declaration adhered to all 3 main principles of the national policy of the Communist Party since the October Revolution:

the principle of internationalism;

the principle of the right of nations to self-determination up to secession;

the principle of Soviet federalism, which provided for the elimination of national oppression at the root and the creation of an atmosphere of mutual trust for fraternal cooperation of peoples.

The next fundamental document of the I Congress of Soviets was the "Treaty on the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" in which the independence of the Soviet republics of the RSFSR, ZSFSR, Ukrainian SSR and BSSR was emphasized, which voluntarily and on the basis of equality enter into a state union with the transfer of a number of their powers to the supreme bodies of central state power ... The treaty consisted of 26 articles, which bore the character of the Constitution.

The Treaty specifically delimited the functions of the supreme bodies of the USSR (all-Union bodies of state power), the Council of People's Commissars (commissariats of foreign affairs, foreign trade, military and naval affairs, communications, mail and telegraph, finance, national economy, food, labor and labor. peasant inspection) and the union republics (commissariats of agriculture, education, health care, social security, internal affairs, justice, which were directly related to the peculiarities of life, morals and specific forms of land management and legal proceedings, the language and culture of peoples). The republics were supposed to have their own budgets, which were constituent parts of the all-union budget. The Central Executive Committee of the Union determined the list of incomes and amounts of income deductions going to the formation of the budgets of the Union republics.

Under the Treaty, a single union citizenship was established for citizens of all union republics, the flag, coat of arms and state seal of the USSR were established with the capital of Moscow. The right of free withdrawal of the union republics and the need to amend the constitutions of the republics in accordance with the Treaty were recognized.

In the final 26th article, it was written that "each of the union republics retains the right to freely withdraw from the Union" without specifying the period of validity or cancellation.

The congress adopted a resolution on the approval of the Declaration and the Treaty. Recognizing the extreme importance of the documents, the Congress decided on the need to hear the final opinion of all the republics, for which they were sent to the Central Executive Committee of the Union republics to provide feedback to the USSR Central Executive Committee for the next session. The final text of the Declaration and the Treaty was decided to be approved at the Second Congress of Soviets of the USSR.

Also, the congress elected the supreme body of the USSR - the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, which included 371 deputies from all the uniting republics.

The chairman is approved by M.I. Kalinin. The government (Council of People's Commissars) of the USSR was headed by V.I. Lenin. The first Soviet people's commissars were:

A.G. Schlichter (agriculture);

I.V. Stalin (for nationalities);

ON. Semashko (health care);

F.E. Dzerzhinsky (Chairman of the Cheka, People's Commissar of Railway Transport);

HELL. Tsyurupa (food).

Closing the congress, Kalinin summed up the results of his work, calling it "an event of world importance." On the same day, December 30, 1922, the I session of the USSR Central Executive Committee was held, chaired by G.I. Petrovsky.

4.7 Composition of the 1st Congress

Preserved very detailed materials on the composition of the congress in many respects. A total of 2,214 delegates arrived at the congress, of which 1,673 with a casting vote and 541 with an advisory vote. There were only 77 women, which constituted 3.5% of the delegates. In terms of age, the congress was young. Only 2% of delegates were older than 50, 1.2% were younger than 20, and the main group - 45% - were delegates from 21 to 30 years old. Next came the age group from 31 to 40 years old - 30.4%, and over 40 years old was 7.9%. The young delegate corps created a young country.

The ethnic composition of the congress was as follows. Russians accounted for 62.5%, Ukrainians - 8%, Belarusians - 1.1%, Jews - 10.8%, Caucasian peoples - 4.5%, Turkic peoples - 5.7%, Latvians and Estonians - 3.4% and other nationalities - 4%. It turned out that the Soviet Union was created, first of all, by the Russians, and this, of course, corresponded to reality. The social composition of the congress delegates was also taken into account, which is also of considerable interest. The share of workers was 44.4%, peasants - 26.8%, intellectuals - 28.8%. In terms of the number of delegates, the workers were in the first place, significantly exceeding both the peasants and intellectuals individually. It is also interesting that there were more intellectuals than peasants, the largest category of the country's population, accounting for approximately 85% of the total population of the country.

Naturally, the party affiliation of the delegates was also taken into account. 94.1% of all delegates belonged to the Communist Party, 5.7% were non-partisans and 0.2% of delegates belonged to other parties, which was only 5 people. Two delegates represented the Jewish Social Democratic Party Poalei Zion, 1 an individualist anarchist, and 2 the Left Socialist Federalists of the Caucasus. It can be said without exaggeration that the overwhelming majority of the congress participants were promoted to the October Revolution. Such a general picture, which gives an idea of those people who had to legislatively decide on the creation of the Soviet Union.

4.8 Georgian conflict. Strengthening separatism

At the same time, in some republics there was a tilt towards the isolation of autonomies, separatist sentiments intensified (for example: the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia flatly refused to remain a part of the Transcaucasian Federation, demanding the admission of the republic to the union as an independent entity).

Violent debates on this issue between representatives of the Central Communist Party of Georgia and the chairman of the Transcaucasian Regional Committee G.K. Ordzhonikidze ended in mutual insults, which were passed on by Ordzhonikidze's assault. The result of the policy of strict centralization on the part of the central authorities was the voluntary resignation of the entire Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia.

To investigate this conflict, a commission was created in Moscow, the chairman of which was F.E. Dzerzhinsky. The commission took the side of G.K. Ordzhonikidze and severely criticized the Central Communist Party of Georgia. This fact angered V.I. Lenin, who repeatedly tried to condemn the perpetrators of the clash in order to exclude the possibility of a subsequent infringement of the independence of the republics. However, the progressive illness and civil strife in the Central Committee of the country's party did not allow him to bring the matter to the end.

5. Development of the USSR

.1 Formation of a young state

The discussion in the republics of the question of creating a new interstate union was intense. The cardinal question of the future of peoples and their states was being decided. Many representatives of the national intelligentsia were in favor of preserving the won sovereignty. They recognized the Union only as another step towards the establishment of strong federal equal relations between the independent republics.

In the Russian Federation itself, the idea of the Union pushed public figures of a number of autonomies, primarily the most developed (Tataria and Bashkiria), to further the sovereignty of their republics. They came up with a proposal for their free entry into the USSR on a par with the union republics.

Stalin was categorical against these proposals, accusing their authors of "social-nationalism." The party-Soviet apparatus imposed an understanding of the union as the entry of the Soviet republics into a new state.

At the same time, on the wave of autonomization among the Russians, the mood was ripening in favor of a special state unification with the creation of appropriate authorities (Congress of Soviets, All-Russian Central Executive Committee, SNK), as well as an independent communist party as part of the Bolshevik party.

The congresses of Soviets, which met in December 1922 in all Soviet republics, after extensive local discussion, supported the proposal to create a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as the "Basic Points of the Constitution of the USSR" prepared by Stalin.

I.V. Stalin stated: “In the West, in the world of bourgeois democracy, we are dealing with a gradual decline and disintegration of multinational states into component parts,” while keeping silent about the prospect of creating an over-centralized state, where the rights of the republics will be curtailed as much as possible.

The official date of formation of the USSR- is an December 30, 1922... On this day, at the I Congress of Soviets, the Declaration on the Establishment of the USSR and the Union Treaty were signed. The Union included the RSFSR, the Ukrainian and Belarusian Socialist Republics, as well as the Transcaucasian Federation. The Declaration formulated the reasons and defined the principles of the unification of the republics. The treaty delimited the functions of the republican and central authorities. The state bodies of the Union were entrusted with foreign policy and trade, means of communication, communications, as well as issues of organization and control of finance and defense. Everything else belonged to the sphere of government of the republics. The supreme body of the state was proclaimed the All-Union Congress of Soviets. In the period between congresses, the main role was assigned to the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, organized according to the principle of two chambers:

The Allied Council;

Council of Nationalities.

The pendulum of global civilization, swinging in the 20th century towards the collapse of the multinational empire, in the USSR rushed to the opposite extreme point- the creation of a totalitarian state.

5.2 Development and adoption of the Constitution of the USSR

The final legal formulation of the formation of the USSR was completed with the adoption of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - the 1st Constitution of the union state.

On April 1923, the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR of the 1st convocation adopted a resolution on the termination of the activities of all previously formed commissions for the development of individual chapters of the Union Constitution and, in order to prepare the final draft of the Constitution, forms another, Expanded Commission, which included 25 people representing the union republics. There were 14 people from the RSFSR, of which 5 were representatives from the autonomous republics, from the Ukrainian SSR - 5, and the BSSR and the ZSFSR were 3 people each. The Commission was headed by M.I. Kalinin. The activity of this Commission was based on the draft of the Constitution of the USSR, drawn up in February of the same year. In May, the draft Constitution was discussed in special commissions of the Central Executive Committee of the Union republics. The extended commission began its work in the second half of May. Sessions 8 were an important milestone in its work. ÷ 16 On June 13, 1923, on June 13, a resolution was adopted to discuss only the draft Constitution (Treaty) in the Commission before the session of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, first of all, by starting to discuss the issue of the all-Union budget, the Supreme Court, the Union coat of arms and flag.

By a special decision of this Commission dated June 16, the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR was instructed to "work out the question of the equality of languages in all government and judicial institutions." Of great interest are not only specific decisions of the Expanded Commission, but also substantive discussion of certain issues. At the 1st meeting of the Commission on June 8, an exchange of views took place on the question of whether to call the Declaration and the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR the Constitution of the USSR. H.G. Rakovsky, in general, opposed the use of the term "constitution", but M.I. Kalinin, D.Z. Manuilsky, M.V. Frunze insisted on the adoption of a constitution. At this meeting, it was decided not to prejudge the question of how to call the all-Union fundamental law - the Treaty or the Constitution. Such a decision was made only at the last meeting, where it was considered expedient to call the basic law the Constitution of the USSR.

June, the subject of lively discussion was a very important constitutional provision on changing the territory of each of the Soviet republics. ON. Skrypnik saw a big difference between the wording of the draft submitted by the Commission of the Central Committee, which said that "the territory of each of the Soviet republics cannot be changed without consent" and the wording "can be changed only with consent." Equally lively was the discussion of the clause on union citizenship, in which a number of members of the Commission took part, including Stalin, with whom Rakovsky again argued, however, on a private issue. On June 16, the Commission adopted a resolution to ask the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the Union to develop the issue of equality of languages in all government and judicial institutions of the USSR. On the same day, a number of other decisions were made on the relationship between the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the Union and the Council of People's Commissars and the commissariats, on symbols, etc. In general, on June 16, the Extended Commission completed the article-by-article consideration of the draft Constitution, adopting the text of the draft.

However, this project was not final either. It was transferred to the constitutional commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), and there it was again considered article by article by making adjustments to a number of formulations, and then submitted to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which met on June 26, 1923. The plenum heard the report of I.V. Stalin on the Constitution of the USSR and generally approved the submitted draft. Further, the draft was discussed at sessions of the Central Executive Committee of the Union republics.

The next important stage on the road to the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR was the II session of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, which opened on July 6, 1923. Information about the work of the Constitutional Commission was heard and the draft Constitution was discussed again chapters. On the same day, the session adopted a resolution on the Constitution of the USSR. The first paragraph of this resolution proclaimed: “The Basic Law (Constitution) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics shall be approved and immediately put into effect ". In the same decree, it was envisaged to submit the Constitution for final approval at the II Congress of Soviets of the USSR.

The session of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR elected the first Soviet government - the Council of People's Commissars headed by V.I. Lenin.

January 1924, the Constitution of the USSR was unanimously approved by the II All-Union Congress of Soviets.

The constitution consisted of 2 sections:

Declaration on the formation of the USSR,

Treaty on the formation of the USSR.

It regulated in more detail the system of state bodies, the subjects of jurisdiction of the bodies of power and administration of the USSR and the union republics. The treaty consisted of 72 articles and was subdivided into 11 chapters:

1. About the subjects of jurisdiction of the supreme power of the USSR.

On the sovereign rights of the Union Republics and on Union citizenship.

On the Congress of Soviets of the USSR.

About the Central Executive Committee of the USSR.

On the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR.

About the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.

On the Supreme Court of the USSR.

On the People's Commissariats of the USSR.

About the OGPU.

About the Union Republics.

On the coat of arms, flag and capital of the USSR.

The jurisdiction of the Union included:

a) Representation of the Union in international relations, the conduct of all diplomatic relations, the conclusion of political and other treaties with other states.

b) Changing the external borders of the Union, as well as settling issues of changing the borders between the Union republics.

c) Conclusion of agreements on admission to the Union of new republics.

d) Declaration of war and conclusion of peace.

f) Ratification of international treaties.

g) Management of foreign trade and the establishment of a system of internal trade.

h) Establishing the foundations and general plan of the entire national economy of the Union, determining the branches of industry and individual industrial enterprises of all-Union significance, concluding concession agreements, both all-Union and on behalf of the Union republics.

i) Management of transport and postal and telegraph affairs.

j) Organization and leadership of the Armed Forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

k) Approval of the unified state budget of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which includes the budgets of the union republics (Establishment of all-union taxes and revenues, as well as deduction from them and surcharges to them received for the formation of budgets of the union republics. Allowing additional taxes and fees for the formation of budgets union republics).

l) Establishment of a unified monetary and credit system.

m) The establishment of general principles of land management and land use, as well as the use of mineral resources, forests and waters throughout the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

n) All-Union legislation on inter-republican resettlements and the establishment of a resettlement fund.

o) Establishment of the foundations of the judicial system and legal proceedings, as well as civil and criminal legislation of the Union.

p) Establishment of basic labor laws.

c) The establishment of common principles in the field of public education.

r) Establishment of general measures in the field of public health protection.

s) Establishment of a system of measures and weights.

t) Organization of all-union statistics.

x) Basic legislation in the field of federal citizenship in relation to the rights of foreigners.

v) The right of amnesty extended to the entire territory of the Union.

w) Cancellation of resolutions of congresses of Soviets and central executive committees of union republics that violate this Constitution.

w) Resolution of controversial issues arising between the union republics.

The approval and change of the basic principles of the Constitution was exclusive to the competence of the Congress of Soviets of the USSR.

The sovereignty of the union republics was limited only within the limits specified in the Constitution, and only in subjects attributed to the competence of the Union. The Union republic retained the right to secede from the Union, the territory could be changed only with its consent.

Installed single union citizenship.

The supreme body of power in the USSR was declared the Congress of Soviets of the USSR, elected from city councils and from provincial congresses of Soviets.

In the period between the congresses, the Central Executive Committee of the USSR was the supreme body of power. The CEC consisted of the Union Council, which 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. The CEC worked in session mode.

In the intervals between sessions of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, elected at a joint meeting of the chambers, was the highest legislative and executive body. The CEC Presidium could suspend the decisions of the congresses of the Soviets of the Union Republics and cancel the decisions of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the People's Commissars of the USSR, the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the Union republics.

The highest executive and administrative body of the USSR Central Executive Committee, heading 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 Chairmen;

People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs;

People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs;

People's Commissar for Foreign Trade;

People's Commissar of Railways;

People's Commissar of Posts and Telegraphs;

People's Commissar of the Workers 'and Peasants' Inspection;

Chairperson Supreme Council National economy;

People's Commissar of Labor;

People's Commissar for Food;

People's Commissar of Finance.

Within the limits of its powers, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR issued decrees, decisions and orders, binding on the territory of the USSR. The Council of People's Commissars was accountable to the Congress of Soviets and the Central Executive Committee of the USSR.

The authorities of the union republics were built on the principle of the authorities of the USSR.

The Constitution provided for the creation of the Supreme Court under the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, which was also entrusted with the functions of constitutional supervision.

The term “federation” is never used in the Constitution, but from its content it was possible to understand that the USSR is a federal state of the Soviet type, and the inviolability of the foundations of Soviet power was already proclaimed in the preamble of the Constitution. The Constitution also never mentions the word "party" and does not say anything about its role, and this immediately gave rise to the question of the relationship between formal attitudes and the actual state of affairs. In fact, the role of the party after the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR not only did not diminish, but even increased.

At a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR on August 3, 1923, a resolution was adopted on the celebration of the day of the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR on the entire territory of the USSR on July 6... Thus, from 6 July 1923 g.The Constitution of the USSR was not only put into effect, but this day is declared a holiday throughout the country. In parallel, the process of creating union government institutions was under way.

Aya Constitution of the USSR included the Declaration and the Treaty on the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, where it was written that "this Union is a voluntary association of equal peoples, that each republic is guaranteed the right of free withdrawal from the Union." A special chapter was devoted to the sovereign rights of the union republics and union citizenship, and it was written in it: “The sovereignty of the union republics is limited only within the limits specified in this Constitution, and only in subjects referred to the competence of the Union. Outside these limits, each union republic exercises its state power independently. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics protects the sovereign rights of the union of republics. "

The Constitution provided for the publication of decrees and resolutions of the Central Executive Committee, its Presidium and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR in the languages of the union republics - Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Georgian, Armenian and Turkic-Tatar.

The Second Congress of Soviets of the USSR completed the process of creating the USSR as a unified federal state.

In 1924 "the first streak of recognition of the USSR" follows. In the same year, diplomatic relations are established with: Austria, Albania, Great Britain, Greece, Denmark, Italy, China, Mexico, Norway, France, Hejaz and Sweden.

5.3 The entry of the republics into the Union of the USSR

The declaration on the creation of the USSR legally enshrined the principles of the structure of the union state:

voluntariness;

equality;

cooperation based on proletarian internationalism.

Access to the union remained open to all Soviet republics. The treaty determined the procedure for the entry of individual republics into the USSR and the right to free exit, as well as the competence of the highest bodies of state power.

In January 1924, the first Constitution of the USSR was adopted by law, according to which the Congress of Soviets of the USSR was declared the supreme body of power. In the intervals between them, the supreme power was exercised by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR (CEC), which consisted of 2 legislative chambers:

Council of the Union;

Council of Nationalities.

The Central Executive Committee of the USSR formed a government - SNK in the form of 3 commissariats:

allied (foreign affairs, army and navy, foreign trade, communications, communications);

unified (at the union and republican level);

republican (domestic politics, jurisprudence, public education).

The OGPU received the status of a union commissariat. The powers for international border defense, internal security, planning and budget were also transferred to the allied bodies. Proclaiming the federal principle of the structure of the state, the Constitution of the USSR contained unitary tendencies, it only declared, but did not stipulate the mechanism for secession from the USSR, encouraged the intervention of the center in the affairs of the republics (Articles 13-29 of Chapter IV), etc.

Since the end of the 20s. many republican enterprises were transferred to the direct subordination of union bodies, whose powers were significantly expanded in connection with the liquidation of the Supreme Council of the National Economy in 1932. The number of union and union-republican people's commissariats grew. Since 1930, all lending has been concentrated through a union body - the State Bank of the USSR. Also, there was a centralization of the judicial system with a simultaneous restriction of the legislative initiative of the republics (since 1929, the republics' right to raise questions directly to the Central Executive Committee of the USSR was abolished, previously they had to submit them to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR). As a result, the scope of the powers and rights of the USSR in the management of industry and finance changed towards expansion, which was a tightening of the centralization of management.

From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1924 and up to the Constitution of 1936, there was a process national-state construction, which was carried out in the following areas:

the formation of new union republics;

changes in the state and legal form of some republics and autonomous regions;

strengthening the role of the center, union authorities.

In 1924, as a result of the national-state demarcation of Central Asia, where the borders did not coincide with the ethnic boundaries of the settlement of peoples, the Turkmen SSR and the Uzbek SSR were formed, in 1931 - the Tajik SSR. In 1936, the Kirghiz SSR and the Kazakh SSR were formed. In the same year, the Transcaucasian Federation was abolished. Republics - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia became part of the USSR. In 1939, after the signing of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, Western Ukraine and Western Belarus were annexed to the USSR. In 1940, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were included in the USSR, as well as the former Russian lands captured by Romania in 1918 - these are Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina.

5.4 Reasons for the formation of the USSR

The formation of the USSR took place not only thanks to the initiative of the leadership of the Communist Party. Over the centuries, preconditions have been formed for the unification of peoples into a single state. The harmony of the association has deep historical, economic, military-political and cultural roots. The former Russian Empire united 185 nationalities and ethnic groups. They all went through a common historical path... During this time, a system of economic and economic ties has developed. They defended their freedom, absorbed the best of cultural heritage each other. And, naturally, they did not feel hostility towards each other.

It is worth considering that at that time the entire territory of the country was surrounded by hostile states. This also influenced the unification of peoples to no less extent.

The formation of the USSR united the efforts of the peoples to restore and develop the economy, culture, and overcome the backwardness of some republics. In the course of nation-building, a policy was pursued of pulling up the backward national regions and achieving de facto equality between them. For this purpose, factories, factories with equipment and part of qualified personnel were transferred from the RSFSR to Central Asia and the Transcaucasian Republic. Allocations were made here for irrigation, the construction of railways, and electrification. Large tax payments were made to the budgets of other republics.

There were certain positive results of the national policy of the Soviet government in the field of:

culture;

education;

health care systems in the republics.

In the 20-30s. national schools and theaters were created, newspapers and literature in the languages of the peoples of the USSR were widely published. Some peoples receive the writing system developed by scientists for the first time. Health issues were addressed.

5.6 Financial and economic development

The unification of the republics into the Union made it possible to accumulate and direct all resources to eliminate the consequences of the civil war. This contributed to the development of the economy, cultural relations and made it possible to begin to get rid of imbalances in the development of individual republics. Characteristic feature the formation of a nationally oriented state was the government's efforts in matters of harmonious development of the republics. For this, some production facilities were moved from the territory of the RSFSR to the republics of Central Asia and the Transcaucasus, providing them with highly qualified labor resources... Financing was carried out to provide the regions with communication routes, electricity, water resources for irrigation in agriculture. The budgets of the rest of the republics received subsidies from the state.

5.7 Social and cultural significance

The principle of building a multinational state on the basis of uniform standards has had a positive impact on the development of such spheres of life in the republics as culture, education and healthcare. In the 1920s and 1930s, schools were built everywhere in the republics, theaters were opened, the media and literature were developing. For some peoples, scientists have developed a writing system. In health care, emphasis is placed on the development of a system of medical institutions. For example, if in 1917 the whole North Caucasus there were 12 clinics and only 32 doctors, then in 1939 only in Dagestan there were 335 doctors. Moreover, 14% of them were from the original nationality.

5.8 national state structure

The Stalinist repressions in the republics and the subsequent deportations of peoples had a negative impact on the national policy. At the same time, not only the peoples of the USSR suffered from the struggle against nationalism, but, to no less extent, the Russian people themselves. Administrative, unitarian tendencies in the national policy of the USSR created the basis for the formation of potential hotbeds of future interethnic conflicts. At the same time, the Soviet leadership sought to suppress separatist tendencies in the national regions by creating a local bureaucracy there, providing it with visible independence under real strict control from the central government.

The Russian Federation gave the first example of nation-building, it has established itself as a union of peoples united on the basis of socialist national autonomy. "As the first multinational Soviet state, the RSFSR was the prototype of the USSR."

5.9 Positive and negative aspects of association

Unification into one multinational state did not contradict the interests of the peoples inhabiting the territory of the country. Consolidation into the Union allowed the young state to take one of the leading positions in the geopolitical space of the world.

However, the adherence of the party's top leadership to excessive centralization of government stopped the expansion of the powers of the country's subjects.

Finally, I.V. Stalin at the end of the 30s.

6. Sunset at the Dawn of the USSR

Summer 1923<#"justify">During Khrushchev's leadership, there were manifestations of subjectivity and voluntarism on his part. Everyone remembers his aphorisms: "We will catch up and overtake America", "Communism by 1980", "Corn is the queen of the fields" and "We will show you Kuzka's mother!"

The standard of living of the people began to rise, prices fell, cards were canceled. The peasants received passports. The "iron curtain" was raised, which closed the exit abroad.

The contribution of the Soviet Union to the progress of civilization in all spheres of life was significant and generally recognized. Hundreds of millions of working people listened to his word and pinned their hopes on freedom, peace and a better future with him. different countries the world. All world powers and leading international organizations... The Soviet Union had a powerful creative potential.

Khrushchev is the only ruler of the USSR to leave his post alive. On October 14, 1964, during Khrushchev's vacation in Pitsunda, the opposition in the Central Committee removed him from the post of general secretary.

Brezhnev became the new general secretary.

In the 70-80s of the XX century, the USSR reached its heyday. The Soviet Union was the largest state in the world in terms of territory, occupying one sixth of the land (22.4 million km 2). The share of the USSR in the world industrial production was about 20%. The Soviet Union ranked 1st in the world - in the production of oil, gas, iron ore, iron and steel smelting, the production of coke, mineral fertilizers, prefabricated reinforced concrete structures and products, footwear, granulated sugar, etc.

The country held leading positions in world science and technology, including in the aerospace and military industries. This time is also commonly called the "golden stagnation" and general crime.

After Brezhnev's death at the age of 76, 2 general secretaries were replaced in 3 years:

The 74-year-old, who was the chairman of the KGB since May 1967, Andropov (from November 10, 1982 to February 9, 1984 (was poisoned)) I remember the reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as the start of an all-out fight against crime across the country.

The Central Committee of the CPSU excites, jokes about the general secretaries are beginning to circulate. A new young and energetic politician is needed. The choice fell on M. Gorbachev, 54 years old, in comparison with the previous secretaries he looks quite young. The people are expecting a change. In the same year, "perestroika" was announced, the fight against drunkenness and alcoholism. The age-old bushes of the vineyards are chopped at the root. Problems begin with food, coupons, queues ...

The real danger of the "uncontrollable" process of the collapse of the USSR forced the center and the republics to seek ways of compromises and agreements. The idea of concluding a new union treaty was put forward by the popular fronts of the Baltic states back in 1988, but until mid-1989 it did not find support either from the country's political leadership or from the people's deputies.

In 1990, the USSR Constitution was amended to establish a presidential form of government in the country. Presidential posts were also established in most of the union republics. Gorbachev was elected President of the USSR at the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR.

In 1990, during the reform political system in the USSR, many union republics adopted the Declaration of Sovereignty, and in 1991 - the Declaration of Independence. Attempts by the union center to use economic measures to influence these decisions were ultimately unsuccessful.

The population at the beginning of 1991 was 290.1 million.

The signing of a new Union Treaty, scheduled for August 20, 1991, prompted the conservatives to take decisive action. the agreement deprived the top of the CPSU of real power. According to the secret agreement between Gorbachev and Yeltsin and the President of Kazakhstan Nazarbayev, which became known to the chairman of the KGB V. Kryuchkov, it was supposed to replace the Prime Minister of the USSR V. Pavlov - N. Nazarbayev after the signing of the agreement. The same fate awaited the Minister of Defense and V. Kryuchkov himself and a number of other high-ranking officials. In the event of such reshuffles, this would mean the dissolution of the current government.

On the night of August 19, 1991, the President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev was “forcibly” removed from power. A group of high-ranking officials, which included Vice President G. Yanaev, KGB Chairman V. Kryuchkov, Defense Minister D. Yazov and Prime Minister V. Pavlov, organized a spontaneous State Committee for the State of Emergency in the USSR (GKChP). The last attempt was made to preserve the USSR, but in an updated form and a radical change in the direction of development of the Soviet Union.

By decrees of the State Emergency Committee in a number of regions of the country, mainly in the RSFSR, a state of emergency was introduced, where it was prohibited:

manifestations;

strikes.

The activity of democratic parties and organizations, newspapers was suspended - control over the mass media was established.

Unfortunately, the State Emergency Committee was able to hold out in power for only 3 days. From the first days, the new government ran into active resistance from naive Russians, who had previously been brainwashed about all the delights of free capitalism.

The events of 19-21 August 1991 changed the country forever. The result of the August 1991 events was the collapse of the USSR. All "attempts" by M.S. Gorbachev's resumption of work on signing a new Union Treaty were unsuccessful. Ukraine and Belarus voted for the independence of their republics and refused to sign the Union Treaty. In this situation, unification with other republics was meaningless. On December 8, 1991, near Minsk, the Presidents of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia signed the "Belovezhskaya Agreement" on the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Later, they were joined by Kazakhstan and other republics, except for the Baltic states and Georgia.

The signing of the "treaty" ended the existence of the Soviet Union as a great powerful state. The "President" of the USSR Gorbachev was forced to resign. The mission to destroy the USSR was carried out in the shortest and most favorable way for the United States.

CONCLUSION

At the VII (April) All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP (b) V.I. Lenin was the first to put forward the idea of creating a union of Soviet republics and, in fact, from that time on, the Bolshevik Party, which formerly professed the principle of centralism and built its national program primarily on the principles of internationalism and the right of nations to self-determination, includes the principle of federalism in its program. In 1917, it was the federalists who were in the majority on national fringes and outnumbered both unifiers and separatists. The creation of the federation made it possible to preserve a single country and at the same time take into account the wishes of its many peoples.

The territorial disintegration of the Russian Empire, as a result of which by the end of 1918 the RSFSR was located approximately within the same borders as medieval Muscovy before the conquests of Ivan the Terrible, ended just 4 years later with the unification of different parts of the state, with a few exceptions, into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This accomplishment is an outstanding result of V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin. The Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) provided the necessary solid core around which the disparate territories could reunite.

The center around which the republics rallied was the RSFSR. The Russian Federation has given the first example of nation-building, it has established itself as a union of peoples united on the basis of socialist national autonomy. "As the first multinational Soviet state, the RSFSR was the prototype of the USSR."

The USSR was not a one-time act, but was the result of a rather long and multi-stage path that showed how difficult and important it was to create a state of a new type. Its formation was the result of an intensive exchange of views, heated discussions, during which various proposals and approaches emerged. The most powerful national movements of that time demanded from all political parties to come to grips with the national question and develop their own concept for its solution.

One of the most important stages on the path of unification was the military alliance of the Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Belarus of June 1, 1919, which provided for close unification not only in the military field, but also in the field of economic, financial and communications with the recognition of independence. , freedom and self-determination of the national republics. On the whole, a number of Soviet republics retained their sovereignty and pursued their not only domestic but also foreign policy, maintaining diplomatic ties with foreign countries.

At the end of the civil war, the country's territory was, especially in the outskirts, a conglomerate of various state and national-state formations, the status of which was determined by many factors - the movement of the fronts, the state of affairs on the ground and the strength of local separatist and national movements.

As the Red Army occupied strong points in various territories, it became necessary to streamline the national state structure. There was no consensus among the Bolshevik leadership about what it should be since the days of party discussions on the national question.

The end of the bloody Civil War and the difficult foreign policy situation required the establishment of not only a single military and economic policy, but also coordination and then a single foreign policy.

There were a number of prerequisites for the unification of the republics around the RSFSR:

ideological community;

the need for economic integration to combat imperialist aggression and internal counter-revolution.

In the first half of 1922, the so-called autonomization plan was developed, which provided for the inclusion of the remaining independent Soviet republics in the RSFSR on the principles of national autonomy. This approach has not received support in Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus.

The proclamation of the new state at the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR on December 30, 1922 still required a lot of subsequent work with the aim of translating these ideas into practice. This work was completed at the next Congress of Soviets of the USSR.

In the spring of 1923, the XII Party Congress met. The speeches of the delegates from the union republics and autonomies showed that centralistic tendencies were growing uncontrollably. Stalin was reproached for concealing from the Communists Lenin's last letters on the national question. At the congress itself, by the decision of its presidium, Lenin's documents were read out in private (at a meeting of the seigneur-convention, hereinafter - by delegations). A group of delegates pointed to a clear disregard for the interests of the republics and underestimation of national problems. Attempts to defend the sovereign rights of peoples within the USSR were suppressed by the central leadership.

At the meeting of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with the responsible workers of the national republics and regions, held in June 1923, the "case" of M. Sultan-Gavitel of Tatarstan was considered. The GPU apparatus was widely involved in the preparation of the "case". Opening the meeting, Kamenev put forward the task "to create a complete mutual understanding between us." This task was achieved at the cost of ignoring the originality of individual peoples. One of the participants in the meeting bluntly stated that local workers, somewhat at odds with the center, were afraid that they would be arrested and shot. The course of the meeting confirmed the validity of these words. The personal file of M. Sultan-Galiev was inflated and used for a wide campaign against the so-called deviation towards nationalism. To ostracize those who took the initiative in pursuing a national policy, Sultan-Galiyev was arrested, expelled from the party and threatened with execution.

On July 6, 1923, the 1st Constitution of the USSR was approved. The sovereignty of the union republics under this Constitution was limited and it became noticeably less significant than it was by the end of 1922, but in general, the USSR retained the sovereign rights of the union republics, each of them had the right to freely secede from the Union, had its own constitutions, supreme and executive bodies, the right to use their own language and the development of national culture. The trend towards unitarity was gaining momentum. It did not contradict the subsequent entry into the USSR of the newly created Soviet socialist republics - Uzbek, Turkmen (1925), Tajik (1929), Kazakh, Kyrgyz (1936), as well as the dissolution of the ZSFSR and direct entry into the USSR in 1936. . Azerbaijan, Armenian and Georgian SSR.

The formation of a multinational union state corresponded to many cultural and historical traditions of the peoples living on the territory of the former Russian Empire. The creation of the USSR also contributed to the strengthening of the geopolitical position of the new state within the international community. Noting the outstanding role of V.I. Lenin in the creation of the USSR, one cannot but recall his mistakes, which became fatal for the Union. The principle of free secession of the republics from the USSR, introduced into the Treaty at the insistence of V.I. Lenin and preserved in the constitutions of the USSR for decades, served in 1991 as the basis for pulling the Union territories into national corners. The Russian Federation, in the formation of which I.V. Stalin at the post of People's Commissar for Nationalities, showed great resistance to separatism and nationalism.

Stalin's plan for "autonomization" proved its historical fidelity and validity.

REFERENCES

1. Bychkov L.N. Tenth Congress of the RCP (b)

Werth N. History of the Soviet State 1917-1991: Per. with fr. 2nd ed. - M .: INFRA-M, Ves Mir Publishing House, 1998

Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia: textbook - M .: Jurist, 2000

Historians argue. Thirteen Conversations - M .: Politizdat, 1988

5. History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Textbook. - M .: Gospolitizdat, 1963

6. Carr E. History of Soviet Russia. Book. 1: volumes 1 and 2. The Bolshevik Revolution. 1917-1923 Per. from English / Preface A.P. Nenarokova - M .: Progress, 1990

8. Manelis B.L., Lenin V.I. - organizer of the USSR // State and Law, 1992 №12

9. Mikoyan A.I. In the early twenties ... - M .: Politizdat, 1975

10. About the 60th anniversary of the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU of February 19, 1982 - Moscow: 1982

Adoption by the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR on December 30, 1924, the Declaration of the creation of the USSR and the draft of the Union Treaty. Formation 12/30/1924 CEC of the USSR, consisting of 371 members and 138 candidates, as well as 4 chairmen (from Ukraine - G. I. Petrovsky).

The formation process of the USSR. Foreign and domestic policy of the USSR

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

Similar documents

Video version of the article:

Two views - two perspectives

Conclusions of the Stalin Commission

Autonomization plan

What did Putin mean?

Lenin's doormat

A compromise that gave a loophole

Who was nobody became everything

Faded for a long time

Conclusion