the law on the transfer to the disposal of the state of church lands, from which the national property fund was formed. According to the Constitution, all residents of France received voting rights. Royalists were supporters of a limited monarchy.
The creation of the USSR was based on the idea of: 1) prohibition of the exit of the republics from the USSR 2) recognition of the right of nations to self-determination 3) entry of the republics on the rightsautonomous entities 4) the possibility of peaceful coexistence of states with different political systems
1. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany was signed by Soviet Russia in:a) March 1918 b) November 1918 c) August 1919 d) December 1917
2. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(USSR) was created in:
A) 1922 b) 1918 c) 1924 "d) 1930
3. The dates 1953,1964,1985 in the history of the USSR are associated with (co):
A) adoption of the Constitution
B) sending troops to other countries
C) holding international youth festivals in the USSR
D) change of leaders of the country
4. economic reform A.N. Kosygin was carried out:
A) 1949-1953 b) 1956-1960 c) 1965-1970 d) 1985-1991
5. Which of the above measures was carried out in Russia in 1905 -1907:
A) the establishment of national equality of citizens
B) the abolition of the class division of society
B) confiscation of landed estates
D) creation of the State Duma
6. Completion of a radical change in the Great Patriotic War is associated with:
BUT) Battle of Kursk c) the battle of Moscow
B) Battle of Stalingrad d) the liberation of Kyiv
^ 7. At the XX Congress was (a):
A) the personality cult of I.V. Stalin
B) a new party program was adopted
C) the course for restructuring is approved
D) removed from office the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU P. S. Khrushchev
8. Write the names of the Russian Nobel Prize winners in Literature II
half of the 20th century:
A) M. Sholokhov, B. Pasternak, I. Brodsky c) KFedin, F. Fadeev, KSimonov
B) A. Tvardovsky, Y. Bondarev, E. Evtushenko d) B. Okudzhava, V. Shukshin, KSimonov
9. December 8, 1991 in a residence near Minsk, the Presidents of Russia, Ukraine, Chairman
The Supreme Soviet of Belarus signed an agreement with y "ob):
A) the introduction of a state of emergency in the USSR
B) the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States
C) the prohibition of the activities of the CPSU in the USSR
D) creation of an inter-republican economic committee
10. The agrarian reform of P.A. Stolypin was characterized by:
A) the creation of peasant communities
B) the rapid development of the cooperative movement
C) the destruction of landownership
D) the creation of a class of small proprietors
11. The command - administrative system in the economy of the USSR was characterized by:
A) government intervention in the economy
B) freedom of enterprise
C) non-economic management methods
D) decentralization of the economy
12. The aftermath of World War II was:
A) the conclusion of the Soviet-American treaty
B) the expansion of the political and military influence of the USSR.
C) strengthening ties with the USSR with the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition
D) formation of the League of Nations
13. The consequences of the February Revolution include:
A) the abolition of the monarchy
B) transfer of land to peasants
C) Russia's withdrawal from the World War
D) the establishment of workers' control in factories and factories
14. I. Stalin's edition of order No. 227 "Not a step back!" dated July 28, 1942 was called
threat
A) the capture of the Crimea by the Germans
B) a new German breakthrough near Moscow
C) the exit of the Germans to the Urals from the south
D) the surrender of Stalingrad and the exit of the German armies to the Volga
15. The course towards complete collectivization meant:
A) the creation of agro-cities c) resettlement of workers in the village
B) transfer of all land to state farms d) association of like-minded people into collective farms
16. Arrange in chronological order the following events of the 20th century:
A) the policy of "war communism" c) NEP (new economic policy)
B) industrialization d) collectivization
17. Establish a correspondence between the concepts and the periods with which they are associated:
Concepts Periods
Glasnost a) 1945 - 1953
Re-Stalinization b) 1953 - 1964
De-Stalinization c) 1965 - 1985
Stalinism d) 1985 - 1991
D) 1991 - 2001
18. Establish a correspondence between foreign policy events in the USSR and
dates:
Events Years
The beginning of the Afghan war a) 1975
The signing in Moscow of the Soviet-American treaty on SALT (limitation of systems
Missile defense) $ b) 1968
The introduction of troops of the USSR and other countries of the Department of Internal Affairs into Czechoslovakia c) 1972
Signing in Helsinki of the Final Act on Security and Cooperation in
Europe d) 1989
a) The first five-year plan for the development of the national economy was designed to:
1) 1925-1929 2) 1928-1932 3) 1933-1937 4) 1936-1940
b) In 1934, the following happened:
1) return from exile of members of the Menshevik Party
2) the appointment of V.P. Molotov to the post of People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs
3) the murder of S. M. Kirov
4) the exile of L. D. Trotsky
c) Conducted in the 1930s. dispossession policy meant:
1) the transfer of farms of kulaks to remote farms with an increase in allotment
2) forcible deprivation of kulaks and peasants of land and farms
3) resettlement of kulaks at the expense of the state to the fertile lands of Siberia
4) redemption of land and farms from the kulaks and their employment in the city
d) The command-administrative system created in the USSR is characterized by (a):
1) freedom of enterprise
2) variety of forms of ownership
3) subordination of the economy to the state
4) independence of industrial enterprises
2. Choose the correct statements from the proposed statements. Write down their numbers.
1. The purpose of industrialization in the USSR was to outstrip the development of light industry
2. The result of collectivization in the USSR was a reduction in the use of machines in agriculture.
3. In the USSR in the 1930s. there was freedom to travel abroad.
4. Mentioned in the political life of the USSR in the 1930s. the word "opposition" meant a legal social movement that criticized the CPSU (b).
5. The course towards complete collectivization Agriculture meant resettlement in the village of workers.
6. In 1932, the passport system was introduced in the USSR.
7. Theoretical substantiation of repressions in the 1930s. became the thesis put forward by I. V. Stalin about the inevitability of an aggravation class struggle in the country as the process of building socialism develops.
8. By 1937, the USSR was fully self-sufficient in industrial production.
9. At the Munich Conference in 1938, the USSR concluded an agreement with Germany on the partition of Czechoslovakia.
10. The main centers of military danger in the world in the 30s. were Germany and the UK.
3. By what principle are the rows formed?
a) 1928-1932, 1933-1937, 1938-1942
b) V. P. Chkalov, G. F. Baidukov, A. V. Belyakov
4. Who (what) is extra in the row?
a) Repressed chiefs of the Red Army:
1) M. M. Tukhachevsky
2) V.K. Blucher
3) N. E. Yakir
4) K. E. Voroshilov
b) Cities built during the first five-year plans:
1) Novokuznetsk
2) Komsomolsk-on-Amur
3) Lugansk
4) Magnitogorsk
5. Arrange the events in chronological order:
a) publication of an article by I. V. Stalin "Dizziness from success"
b) VII Congress of the Comintern
c) the entry of the USSR into the League of Nations
d) adoption of the second Constitution of the USSR
e) the beginning of complete collectivization
6. Note the results and consequences of the industrialization policy:
a) a significant increase in the standard of living of the population
b) attracting large foreign investments in industry
c) creation of a new metallurgical base in the east of the country
d) achieving economic independence
e) the transformation of the country into an industrial-agrarian power
f) the emergence of the USSR in first place in the world in terms of industrial development
7. Set the correct match:
1) K. S. Petrov-Vodkin a) the film "Chapaev"
2) S. M. Eisenstein b) the novel "Virgin Soil Upturned"
3) M. A. Sholokhov c) the painting "Death of the Commissar"
4) K. F. Yuon d) the film "Alexander Nevsky"
e) painting "New Planet"
To the question What is the name of the principle put by I. V. Stalin as the basis of the plan for the unification of the Soviet republics in 1922? given by the author Svetlana Obabkova the best answer is Formation of the USSR: reasons and principles for the creation of the Union. (Ticket 10)
Option 1
The agreement on the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was signed in December 1922 by representatives of four Soviet republics: the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasian Federation (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia).
During the years of the Civil War, these states formed a military-political union by concluding a system of interstate treaties and agreements. With the end of the war, efforts to find future forms of economic and political unification intensified.
Reasons for the creation of the USSR. The rapprochement of the republics, on the one hand, corresponded to historical traditions: a single economy that had been developing for centuries, fruitful cultural interaction, participation in the defense of the country from external enemies. On the other hand, it relied on the similarity of the political systems that emerged after October 1917. , on party unity: the national communist parties that were in power in these states were part of the RCP (b).
This process was not easy. Both the nationalist sentiments of a part of the local elite and the desire of the center (in the person of the Russian governing bodies) to approve a single order of government, ignoring the opinion of the republics, made themselves felt.
Principles of creation of the USSR. In August 1922, on behalf of the commission created by the decision of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), a plan was proposed for the entry of the Soviet republics into the RSFSR on the rights of autonomies (I.V. Stalin's autonomization project). Its authors argued that the unification of the republics into a real, as they called it, federation (as opposed to a fictitious one, when official speeches about the independence of the republics cover up the actual omnipotence of the center) would lead to the fact that in a year it would be extremely difficult to maintain the unity of the Soviet republics.
This project was opposed by the leaders of the republican communist parties. They argued that a real federation would be useful not only from the point of view of strengthening the international influence of the Soviet system, but also in terms of gaining the confidence of the masses, solving economic problems, etc. Proposals were made to create a confederation that would allow the republics to remain completely independent in solving domestic policy issues.
A heated discussion ended with the approval of the federal project of V. I. Lenin: the republics retain their independence and, on the basis of equality, conclude an agreement on the formation of a union (federation). It was about "a new union, a new federation", "a new floor, a federation of equals".
The formation of the USSR was important historical meaning. A new form of coexistence of peoples, who had been part of a single state for a long time, was found. At the same time, the federal principles of the structure were gradually replaced by others - unitary ones.
Option 2
Education of the USSR. National policy in the 20s - 30s.
Disintegration in 1918-1918 single, centralized Russian state was replaced by a unification movement that led to the formation of the USSR in 1922. In the years civil war on the outskirts of the former Russian Empire several Soviet republics arose, which developed not within the framework of the RSFSR, but next to it, independently. In June 1919, a military alliance was formed between them, to which in 1920-21. 3 Transcaucasian, Soviet republics joined. At the same time, the military alliance was supplemented by an economic alliance. According to the agreements, people's commissariats, councils of the national economy, a single monetary system was introduced. In 1922, a diplomatic alliance was formed between the republics for the period of the international conference in Genoa, where the Russian delegation represented and defended the interests of all Soviet republics. After the conference, the diplomatic alliance was strengthened and expanded. In 1922, 3 Transcaucasian republics merged into the ZSVSR. In addition, in all the republics there was a single political system - Soviet power. Kom became the cementing force of the unifying process. The consignment. The commission for the unification of the republics was headed by Stalin. He put forward the idea
UNITARITY principle
original source
The regulation of interethnic relations in Russia was relevant even at the time of the creation of the Russian state. Such is the peculiarity of a country inhabited by different ethnic groups, with which it was necessary to negotiate on the choice of the optimal form of relations. This went on for centuries. Pre-revolutionary Russia was a country where, literally every decade, there was a process of strengthening national movements that raised the question of the isolation of nations and even the integrity of the country and state.
If in the 19th century there was one large national movement on its territory - the Polish one, then at the end of this century Ukrainian, Armenian, Georgian, Lithuanian and other national movements quite noticeably declared themselves. Even opponents of the use of the concept of “national oppression” in relation to Russia still recognize its existence in an everyday sense (see: Buldakov V.P. Chaos and ethnicity. Ethnic conflicts in Russia, 1917-1918. Conditions for the emergence, chronicle, commentary , analysis, Moscow, 2100, pp. 10-11). A new stage in the strengthening of national movements can be traced during and especially after the revolution of 1905-1907. And then followed the next stage of their strengthening in 1917. As you know, the Ukrainian Central Rada was established on March 4 (17), 1917, and the next day, on March 5, the Provisional Government welcomed the Belarusian National Committee, headed by R. Skirmunt (see: ibid., p. 175). At the same time, in early March, "Shura-i-Islam" was founded in Tashkent, and the number of such organizations at that time was increasing more and more.
Naturally, in connection with the strengthening of national movements, not a single major Russian political party could do without its own program on the national question. By the way, there is a special literature about this. The Russian revolutionary movement has also offered its recipe for resolving national problems, literally from its very inception. In the era of the Decembrists, both the centralists, whose most characteristic figure was P. Pestel, and the supporters of a federation on a territorial basis (N. Muravyov), and those who advocated a federation of nationalities, emerged. The latter included members of the Society of United Slavs. And in the future, among the leaders of the revolutionary movement were federalists, which included A. Herzen, N. Chernyshevsky, M. Bakunin, and centralists, represented by P. Tkachev, G. Plekhanov and other leaders of the social movement.
Russia is a very complex country in its composition. It is very diverse, multi-confessional and multi-geographical. It is extremely difficult to find a single ideology for it, and historical practice has shown that, in principle, the “Russian idea” should be supranational and supra-confessional. And such an idea was developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This idea turned out to be the idea of social truth, that is, socialism, which in many ways became a further development of the original “Russian idea” about the need for the rule of truth and justice. Pitirim Sorokin once wrote that in 1917 socialism became the religion of the Russian people.
But this did not rule out the need to develop a special program on the national question. Bolshevism, from its very inception, relied primarily on the principles of internationalism and the right of nations to self-determination. In the first Program of the Party, the Social Democrats openly declared their struggle against nationalism. The Bolsheviks, however, were initially opponents of federalism, and Lenin openly opposed it, which was repeatedly noted in the literature (see, for example: Tadevosyan E. Soviet federalism: theory, history, modernity // History of the USSR. 1991. No. 6) .
I. Stalin as one of the main developers national program The Bolsheviks were also opposed to federalism. In his article, published in Pravda on March 28, 1917, and which was called “Against Federalism,” Stalin spoke out against an article published in the Socialist-Revolutionary newspaper Delo Naroda, which advocated a “federal state.” Stalin not only disagreed with the statement of the Socialist-Revolutionary author, but opposed him very decisively, emphasizing "that it is unreasonable to seek for Russia a federation that is doomed to extinction by life itself" (Stalin I.V. Soch. Vol. 3. - M., 1946 pp. 25). Subsequently, as is known, Stalin admitted the fallacy of this position of his during the new publication of this article.
But it was in 1917 that the change of position on the problem of federation by V.I. Lenin is well traced. On April 29 (May 12), 1917, at the April Conference of the RSDLP (b), Lenin emphasized: “We want a fraternal union of all peoples. If there is a Ukrainian Republic and a Russian Republic, there will be more ties between them, more trust. If the Ukrainians see that we have a republic of Soviets, they will not secede, but if we have a Milyukov republic, they will secede” (V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch. Vol. 31, pp. 436-437).
The resolution of the April Conference on the National Question clearly stated that all the nations that were part of Russia were recognized as having the right to free secession and the formation of independent states, and, at the same time, it was called for not to confuse the right to secession with the expediency of secession. It was also noted there: “The party demands broad regional autonomy, the abolition of supervision from above, the abolition of the compulsory state language and the determination of the boundaries of self-governing and autonomous regions on the basis of the consideration by the local population of economic and living conditions, the national composition of the population, etc.” This resolution rejected cultural and national autonomy, the privileges of any nations, and emphasized the need to merge workers of various nationalities in single organizations (see: V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch. T. 31, pp. 439-440).
Thus, at the April conference the idea of a union of Soviet republics and broad regional autonomy was voiced, together with other basic provisions of Russian Marxists on the national question. On the whole, the Bolshevik program on this question was further developed. In general, in the “Materials for the revision of the party program”, Lenin dwelled on the most important provisions of the future Constitution of the Russian Soviet Republic, referring to them the need for regional self-government, the right of every citizen to receive an education and explain himself in mother tongue with the abolition of the compulsory state language, the right to free secession and to form their own state for all nations. At the same time, Lenin emphasized “The Republic of the Russian people should attract other peoples or nationalities not by violence, but exclusively by a voluntary agreement to create a common state” (Lenin V.I. Poln. sobr. soch. T. 32. P. 154).
The insufficiency of the pre-February program of the Bolsheviks on the national question, in particular, the rejection of federalism or political autonomy, was noted back in 1917 and later (see: Zhuravlev V.V. The national question in the programs of all-Russian political parties of the early twentieth century // History of national political parties in Russia ... S. 88). The very practice of national movements also prompted new provisions that were part of the general program of the Bolsheviks on the national question (Basalai A. The development of nations and their relations in the USSR. - M., 1998. P. 107-108). Back in the spring (May) of 1917, Lenin, in his “Order to the deputies elected by factories and regiments to the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies,” dwelling on the position of the Bolshevik Party on the national question, noted that it was necessary to give the right “to all peoples, without exception, to decide quite freely whether they want to live in a separate state or in a union state with anyone” (V. I. Lenin, Complete collection of works, vol. 32, p. 41).
In the summer of 1917 Lenin, sharply criticizing the policy of the Provisional Government in the field of national relations and, in particular, categorically disagreeing with its actions in relation to Finland and Ukraine, he again emphasized already at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets: “This is a policy that represents an outrage against the rights of the people who suffered from kings because their children want to speak their native language. This means being afraid of individual republics. From the point of view of the workers and peasants, this is not terrible. Let Russia be a union of free republics” (V. I. Lenin, Complete collection of works, vol. 32, p. 286). Thus, Lenin was more and more asserted in the thought not only of the possibility, but also of the necessity of the future structure of Russia as a union of republics. "Union of Republics" is the term of the spring-summer of 1917. The union of republics was understood by V.I. Lenin as a union of free or, in other words, Soviet republics. It was in 1917 that Lenin established himself in the need for Soviet federalism, and there were several reasons for this.
The national liberation movement in Russia in 1917 was not uniform and of the same type, just as the general situation at that time was not simple. After a period of complete confusion, around the end of August 1917, even the monarchists revived both in Russia itself and abroad, planning to return Nicholas II to the throne (see: Ioffe G.Z. The Great October and the epilogue of tsarism. - M., 1987 pp. 188-189). Usually there are two forms of the national liberation movement. This division into bourgeois-nationalist and revolutionary-democratic did indeed take place. But such a division of national forces is still not enough for a detailed account of national characteristics on the Russian outskirts. Among the representatives of the so-called nationalists, one can single out both supporters of a centralizing, even assimilationist installation, that is, people who have switched to Russian chauvinist positions (P. Krushevan, V. Purishkevich, etc.), and supporters of secession from Russia at all costs. The third trend in the national movement was the federalists, who declared themselves back in the 19th century. Under these conditions, the Bolshevik Party had to decide with which of the currents of the national movement to establish close contact or, in general, to abandon direct ties with the various peoples of the country. Failure to take into account the moods of the national outskirts would inevitably lead to defeat.
Naturally, the Bolsheviks could not support either the centralist assimilators or the supporters of secession, with the possible exception of Poland and Finland. Therefore, the installation of cooperation with the federalists was the only correct one. Federalists, that is, supporters of the Russian Federal Republic, were in the majority among the leaders of the national movements in 1917, and this once again showed the correctness of the decisions of the Bolshevik Party. In addition, it was impossible not to take into account that the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the largest Russian political party in 1917, had already introduced the principle of federalism into its program. Soon after the revolution of 1905-1907, the principle of autonomy and federalism was proclaimed in this party even in its organizational structure. Georgia had its own Party of Socialist-Federalists, which collaborated with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anarchists and supported the Provisional Government, believing that it would give Georgia territorial autonomy. The Russian Radical Democratic Party and the Labor People's Socialist Party, represented in the Provisional Government, also leaned toward federalism.
Thus, the practice of 1917 led the Bolsheviks to the need for federalism. The “Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People” of January 12 (25), 1918 proclaimed: “The Soviet Russian Republic is established on the basis of a free union of free nations, as a federation of Soviet national republics” (Establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics / Sat doc. - M ., 1972, p. 32). Actually, this was the first legislative approval of Russia as a federation, a Soviet federation.
By the October Revolution of 1917, the Bolshevik Party had a well-defined program on the national question. First of all, it was built on the principle of internationalism - "Proletarians of all countries, unite!", the principle of the right of nations to self-determination up to secession and the principle of federalism or a union state. At that time, this was the best option for building relationships with the numerous nationalities of vast Russia. The Bolshevik Party, which at the end of 1917 in terms of its social composition consisted of 60% of the workers, and in terms of the national composition of more than 66% consisted of Russians, managed to win over to its side significant masses of the non-Russian population of the country. It is no coincidence that the so-called nationals gave the Red Army a number of outstanding commanders: I. Vatsetis, M. Frunze, G. Guy (Bzhishkyan), A. Imanov, V. Kikvidze, A. Kork, G. Kotovsky, Yu. Kotsyubinsky, S. Lazo, A. Nemitz, A. Parkhomenko, R. Sievers, S. Timoshenko, I. Uborevich, J. Fabricius, N. Shchors, I. Yakir and others. the "greens" nor the "blacks" (anarchists) did not give such prominent commanders, representing the various nationalities of the country. And this is one of the reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution and the Civil War, since it was necessary to create, and in the shortest possible time, a new army in an extremely difficult conditions(See: Molodtsygin M.A. Red Army. Birth and formation of 1917-1920 - M., 1997. S. 203-206).
However, the intervention and the Civil War left their mark on nation-state building. Bourgeois forces temporarily won in a number of outlying districts and took the path of creating bourgeois states independent of the Land of Soviets. It is noteworthy that the first international treaty of the Soviet state was an agreement with Finland dated March 1, 1918 on the recognition of its independence (see: Buldakov V.P., Kuleshov S.V. History of the formation of the USSR and criticism of its falsifiers. - M., 1982. S. 93). On January 11 (24), 1918, the Ukrainian Central Rada declared the independence of the Ukrainian People's Republic, at the same time Sfatul tsarii announced the independence of the Moldavian Republic. On March 25, the Belarusian Rada announced the separation of Belarus from Soviet Russia, which on March 9 proclaimed the independent Belarusian People's Republic. On May 26, an independent Georgian Democratic Republic is proclaimed, etc. When Soviet power is restored or established in the territories of these countries, the independence of the republics, already Soviet ones, was preserved. For example, on December 7, 1918, signed by Lenin, the “Decree of the Council of People's Commissars on Recognizing the Independence of the Estonian Soviet Republic” was issued. The first paragraph of this Decree stated: “The Russian Soviet government recognizes the independence of the Estonian Soviet Republic. The Russian Soviet government recognizes the power of the Soviets of Estonia as the supreme power of Estonia, but until the Congress of Soviets - the power of the Council of People's Commissars of Estonia, headed by its chairman, Comrade. Anvelt" (Establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ... p. 65).
The well-known document on the unification of the forces of the Soviet republics, primarily in the military field, dated June 1, 1919, was a union of independent republics. In this document, it is directly highlighted: “The military alliance of all the above-mentioned Soviet socialist republics should be the first response to the offensive of common enemies. Therefore, standing completely on the basis of recognizing the independence, freedom and self-government of the working masses of Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus and the Crimea and proceeding both from the resolution of the Ukrainian Central Executive Committee adopted at a meeting on May 18, 1919, and from the proposals of the Soviet governments of Latvia, Lithuania and Belorussia—the All-Russian Central Executive Committee recognizes the need for close unification” (ibid., p. 103). At the same time, in June 1919, in the article “The Great Initiative”, Lenin mentions the fate of millions of people “united first into one socialist state, then into the Union of Soviet Republics” (Lenin V.I. Full. collected. Op. T. 39. S. 23-24).
And in the future, the independence of the Soviet republics, which at first had, among other things, their diplomatic representatives in a number of countries, was repeatedly not only recognized, but also emphasized by the government bodies of the RSFSR. Corresponding agreements were concluded between them as agreements of independent republics. For example, on January 16, 1921, an agreement is concluded between the RSFSR and the BSSR, which recognized the independence and sovereignty of each of the contracting parties (see: Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ... pp. 168-170). The “Resolution of the Plenum of the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the relations between the Transcaucasian Soviet Republics and the RSFSR” dated July 3, 1921 stated: “To recognize as necessary the implementation of the independence of the Caucasian republics (Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia) ...” (Central Committee of the RCP (b) )—The All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the National Question, Book 1, 1918-1933, Moscow, 2005, p. 47).
Abroad, they tried to cultivate the thesis of a new "conquest" of the Caucasus. But what is curious, the London Times of January 2, 1920, wrote that 90% of the population of Dagestan and 60% of the population of Azerbaijan were looking forward to the Bolsheviks (see: Buldakov V.P., Kuleshov S.V. Decree. Op. S. 134). In general, one of the reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Civil War was the correct national policy. This was well understood by their political opponents. In 1921, at a meeting of emigrants, former members of the Constituent Assembly, who discussed plans for the restoration of old Russia, one of the speakers, Iskhanov, said: “Remember the anti-Bolshevik movement. Denikin occupied half of Russia, Kolchak approached Kazan and dreamed of entering victoriously into Moscow, and one fine day both were destroyed without much difficulty, because they both ignored the national question ”(quoted from: Gililov S. Decree. op. S. 82).
When M.N. Tukhachevsky and I.T. Smilga, being on Western front, issued an order that affected the sovereignty of the peoples, then Lenin wrote a telegram to send them, which outlined the decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which severely condemned their behavior as tactless and undermined the policy of the party and government (see: ibid. P. 83 ).
At the same time, after the end of the Civil War, the issue of regulating relations between the republics remained one of the most important not only in the field of domestic policy of the young Soviet states, but also in foreign policy. One of the evidence of this was the special "Resolution of the Tenth Congress of the RCP (b) on the immediate tasks of the party in the national question." It was the result of a special discussion at the congress of national relations on the report of I.V. Stalin "The Immediate Tasks of the Party in the National Question." This resolution clearly traces the line towards rapprochement between the Soviet republics, preference is given to federation, although the republics are called independent, and a struggle is declared against two deviations - chauvinistic and nationalist (see: CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. Vol. 2 / 8th ed. - M., 1970. S. 246-256). The resolution of the 10th Congress of the RCP(b) on the national question played a significant role in further state building and the creation of a new type of country.
Ahead, however, were there were still significant difficulties, which were explained by the struggle of interests between the center and the outskirts, by a different understanding of the foundations for building a future state, either in the form of a federal state, or in the form of a union of states, up to a confederation. These divergent views were particularly evident in 1922. Serious questions arose already during the preparation of the united Soviet delegation for the international conference, which took place in April-May 1922. As early as January 13, 1922, in French Cannes, the Supreme Council of the Entente decided to convene an international economic and financial conference, to which, among other countries, they also decided to invite Russia (see: Documents foreign policy THE USSR. T. V. - M., 1961. S. 58). As you know, a single Soviet delegation represented there the interests of all the Soviet republics - Azerbaijan, Armenian, Belorussian, Bukhara, Georgian, Ukrainian, Khorezm and Far East.
On January 5, 1922, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) decides to form a commission under the NKID under the chairmanship of G. Chicherin, consisting of M. Litvinov, G. Sokolnikov, A. Ioffe, A. Lezhava and N. Krestinsky. Later, the commission was expanded (see: Nezhinsky L.N. At the origins of the Bolshevik-unitary foreign policy (1921-1923) // National history. 1994. No. 1. P. 96). Already on January 10, Chicherin, in a letter to Molotov, reports on a meeting of the commission on January 9, where the issue of including the fraternal republics in the RSFSR by the time of the conference was put forward by the time of the conference (see: Anniversary Anniversary. Why didn’t the USSR celebrate its 70th anniversary? - M., 1992, p. 87). The question posed, of course, was far from ordinary. Indeed, there were many problems, because it was about independent republics. Another problem is the activity of émigré governments abroad. Even when the conference in Genoa began, the representatives of these governments tried in every possible way to obtain admission from the Western states to participate in it as the legitimate governments of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and, conversely, to prevent B. Mdivani, A. Bekzadyan, N. Narimanov (see: Harmandaryan S.V. Rallying peoples in the construction of socialism. (Experience of the ZSFSR). - M., 1982. P. 50).
Not later than January 13, 1922, I.V. Stalin draws up a note to the members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the composition and powers of the Soviet delegation to the European conference and highlights at the same time that “the question arises of our independent republics (both Soviet and Far Eastern Republics) . At the conference, for the first time, one will have to face the question of the borders of the RSFSR and the legal relationship between the independent republics and the RSFSR. Further, referring to the possible difficulties that may arise in relations with foreign representatives, and these difficulties, in his opinion, may arise with the question of the borders of the RSFSR and legal relations between the independent republics and the RSFSR, Stalin sets the task of uniting the republics. At the same time, he emphasizes: “Considering the undesirable prospect outlined above and proceeding from the need to establish the unity of the diplomatic front, some comrades propose to achieve in the shortest possible time the unification of all independent republics with the RSFSR on the basis of autonomy” (Failed Anniversary ... P. 88).
Stalin fully shared the point of view"certain comrades" and the need for serious preparatory work for its implementation. He stood up for a single delegation at the conference, supported by all the plenipotentiaries of the Soviet republics. At the same time, in his short note, the term independent republics appears 5 times. That is, Stalin did not at all deny the existence of Soviet independent republics. Difficulties of a diplomatic nature, however, are noted not only in this note. Attention is drawn to the letter of the head of the Ukrainian government H. Rakovsky - V. Molotov dated January 28, 1922, regarding the project of unification of the foreign policy of the Soviet republics drawn up by G. Chicherin.
Rakovsky assesses Chicherin's project, if accepted, as "the greatest political mistake" (ibid., p. 89). He even wrote that "in fact, the Chicherin project formally abolishes the independent Soviet republics." At the same time, Rakovsky by no means rejected the need to come to the Genoa Conference as a single delegation and advocated a unified foreign policy of the Soviet republics (see: ibid., pp. 90-91). Somewhat later, already at the XI Congress of the RCP (b), which was held from March 27 to April 2, 1922, another leader of the Ukrainian Republic N.A. Skrypnik drew the attention of the congress to the report of V.I. Lenin, where Ukraine was considered as an independent republic, and noted the emerging administrative and formal bureaucratic trend, both in relation to Ukraine and to other national republics, aimed at eliminating their statehood (see: Eleventh Congress of the RCP (b) March-April 1922. Verbatim report. - M., 1961. S. 37, 72-75, 115).
Actually, the idea of including other republics in the RSFSR was not new. Back in the middle of 1919, Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic E.M. Sklyansky officially proposed to unite all independent Soviet republics into a single state by incorporating them into the RSFSR (see: History of Russia in the 20th - early 21st century / Edited by L.V. Milov . - M., 2006. S. 348). Then, in the context of the expansion of the Civil War, this issue could not be openly raised or discussed on the ground, especially since Soviet power was abolished in the Baltics, and in Ukraine, and in Belarus, and in Transcaucasia. Bourgeois republics were established there, and if this plan of Sklyansky became known, it would be used in the struggle against the national policy of the Soviet government. In 1922, when Soviet power was restored in these regions, the independence of the republics was emphasized in every possible way.
This fact of recognition of the sovereignty of the Soviet republics must be taken into account in connection with the emergence of the “autonomization” plan in 1922, when work was underway to create the USSR and it was planned to include the rest of the independent republics in the RSFSR. It turned out, in this way, that the sovereignty of other republics was abolished, and this gave grounds for accusing the Russian Soviet leadership of expansionism and violation of previous agreements. It is usually written that this plan was not supported by the Georgian leadership; in fact, it did not receive the support of either the Ukrainian or Belarusian leadership. The literature even notes that “the majority of the republics did not support the plan of ‘autonomization’ (History of national-state construction in the USSR 1917-1978. T. I. / 3rd ed. - M., 1979. P. 21).
It is the opposition to this plan in the republics alarmed Lenin and prompted him to draw up a fundamentally different plan for the future construction of the USSR. Within the framework of this plan, a Commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) (October 6, 1922) "on the question of relations between the RSFSR and the independent republics" is being created. And on the same day, October 6, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) adopted a special resolution "On the relationship of the RSFSR with the independent Soviet Socialist Republics." The independence of the republics was thus emphatically emphasized. The commission as a whole conducted its work under the influence of Lenin's recommendations and prepared the basis for future decisions. The Declaration and Treaty of December 30, 1922, approved by the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR, which took place in Moscow, became the constitutional documents of the created Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and received support in all republics. On the one hand, a single state was created, on the other hand, a union of republics was preserved, which, by law, had the right to secede. A kind of two-storied federation was created, which proved its correctness for decades. From its very inception, its international significance was also recognized as an example for other peoples (see: Zhukov Yu. Stalin's First Defeat 1917-1922. From the Russian Empire to the USSR. - M., 2011. P. 617). Later, the principle of the Soviet people as a historical, social and psychological community was also added to the three fundamental principles of the Soviet national policy (see: Grosul V.Ya. Education of the USSR (1917-1924). - M., 2007. S. 194).
Not everything went smoothly after 1922. Different points of view were also revealed during the preparation of the first Constitution of the USSR. Thus, some representatives of Ukraine (Kh.G. Rakovsky, N.A. Skrypnik) generally denied the term “constitution” and suggested calling it “an agreement between the union republics”, deleting from the draft Constitution the words that the republics “are united into one union state". Their proposals, which boiled down to the creation of Soviet Union not federations, but confederations did not meet with the support of the majority of party leaders (see: Gililov S. Decree. soch. p. 197).
It is noteworthy that during the preparation of the second Constitution of the USSR in 1936, there were proposals to either amend Article 17, or to completely exclude it, that is, to exclude the article that spoke about the preservation of the right of the Union republics to freely secede from the USSR. Stalin, who made a report on the Constitution at the Extraordinary VIII All-Union Congress of Soviets on November 25, 1936, categorically opposed this proposal. He then said: “The USSR is a voluntary union of equal union republics. To exclude from the Constitution an article on the right to freely secede from the USSR means to violate the voluntary nature of this union. Can we take this step? I think that we cannot and should not take this step” (Stalin I.V. Soch. Vol. 14, p. 140).
In a country where there were dozens of nations and nationalities It was not easy to regulate interethnic relations. Certain collisions remained, for example, some territorial problems. But in general, the foundations of national relations were quite strong. To the principles of internationalism, the right of nations to self-determination up to secession and federalism, the principle of the Soviet people was indeed added over time. This new principle especially spoke of itself during the trials of the Great Patriotic War. In his speeches and orders, beginning with a speech on the radio on July 3, 1941, and up to the famous toast on May 24, 1945 at a reception in the Kremlin in honor of the commanders of the Red Army, Stalin repeatedly uses the term "Soviet people", and at the reception he was proclaimed a toast “for the health of our Soviet people, and above all the Russian people” (see: ibid. pp. 58, 94, 102, 130, 147, 151, 168, 220, 228).
The awareness of themselves as the Soviet people by various nations of the USSR was confirmed by subsequent sociological surveys, as well as Soviet patriotism (see: Soviet people - a new historical community of people. - M., 1975. P. 404). It is no coincidence that the blow of the enemies of the USSR was directed primarily against the Soviet people. One of the prominent US ideologists, Z. Brzezinski, speaking on Russian television in the fall of 1991, declared that there was no Soviet people, but only Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, etc.
In the early 1980s, there were two trends in national relations in the USSR. On the one hand, the intensification of interethnic roughness associated with the presence of some national dissatisfaction - the insufficient use of national languages, territorial problems, dissatisfaction with the placement of national personnel. On the other hand, there was an undoubted process of rapprochement of nations, expressed in the fact that more than 82% of the country's population already knew Russian as the language of interethnic communication, and bilingualism, as you know, also had social significance (see: Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M ., 1972, pp. 4-5). In addition, there was a process of increasing interethnic marriages, which reached 15% by the 1980s. Therefore, much depended on how skillfully interethnic relations in the USSR would be regulated.
Specific practice in this area during the period of the so-called "perestroika" demonstrated not only the inability to regulate interethnic relations, but also the push to aggravate them. The main reason was the change in the social system, in which the nationalist forces raised their heads. The Soviet system of national relations, which was designed for Soviet instruments of governing the country, where public ownership of the tools and means of production dominated and where the leading role in the leadership of the country belonged to the Communist Party, changed, and then was replaced by another system in which the Soviet principles of national relations could no longer act. Under these conditions, the destruction of the country occurred.
no fault of the people who created the USSR in their time, were not here. They solved their problem. At the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, with the destruction of the Soviet system, it was naive to believe that the Soviet principles of national relations would operate automatically. Interethnic relations escalated and led to a number of serious conflicts. Nevertheless, the All-Union referendum on March 17, 1991, held in most of the republics of the USSR, showed that more than three-fourths of its participants stood for the preservation of the USSR. Even in those six republics where central republican referendum commissions were not created, many hundreds of thousands of people voted for the preservation of the USSR.
However, the USSR was nevertheless destroyed, contrary to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the population of the USSR. The people as a whole wanted to preserve their country, and the fact that this desire was not accidental and long-term is evidenced by sociological surveys in 2006.
In connection with the 15th anniversary of the CIS in December 2006, population surveys were conducted in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. 68% of the population of the Russian Federation stated that they regret the liquidation of the USSR. In Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, about 60% of respondents also expressed regret over the liquidation of the USSR. 60% of those who regret the USSR were recorded during a sociological survey in August of the same year in Moldova. 20 years have passed since the liquidation of the USSR, the composition of the population has noticeably changed, but the majority of the people speak highly of the country that was created 90 years ago. We are not aware of sociological materials today, but they hardly differ from those that were received 5 years ago. Naturally, with such a high proportion of those who regret the liquidation of the Soviet Union, there is a real opportunity to promote the rapprochement of peoples and conclude a new agreement between them, which, in our opinion, can be based on the constitutional documents of 1922.
To the 90th anniversary of the formation of the USSR. V.Ya.Grosul
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.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru
INTRODUCTION
At the end of the civil war, the country's territory was, especially on the outskirts, a conglomerate of various state and national state formations, whose status was determined by many factors: the movement of fronts, the state of affairs on the ground, the strength of local separatist and national movements. As the Red Army occupied strongholds in various territories, the question arose of streamlining the national-state system.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - the so-called state that existed on political map world for nearly 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 makes us return to the pages Soviet history, peering in a new way into their features, into the events that took place in those years. Today's assessments of these events are by no means unambiguous. Political reforms recent years and the pluralism of opinions that arose, thanks to them, allow us to more objectively analyze many phenomena and processes.
Let's quote the one published in the 1950s-1960s. encyclopedic work The 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 Soviet nations was the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which brought to life the great Leninist idea of a voluntary union of equal peoples ... History has known 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 fully 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 that would ensure the power of the working people. Such democratic principles were proclaimed as the supremacy of representative collegiate bodies, the participation of workers in the management of public affairs, the right of nations to self-determination, and others ... But democratic forms were perverted by the totalitarian regimes that had developed in practice in these countries.
The point of view of Professor P. Gronsky, who dealt with the problems of the national state system after 1917, is also interesting. Like many other scientists in those years, he went abroad and there, analyzing the articles of the first Union Constitution, he concluded that the USSR cannot be called state or federation that such an entity could disappear at any moment.
In the presented work, we will try to draw conclusions from the experience of creating the USSR; in general, our work is devoted to studying the features of the process of formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Today it is obvious that the formation of the USSR became the most important stage in the formation of a new model of statehood on the territory of the collapsed Russian Empire and determined many features of the subsequent development of the country.
Objective- analyze ideas about the main features of the process of formation of the USSR, paying attention to the relationship between history and modernity.
1. PREREQUISITES FOR THE FORMATION OF THE USSR
1.1. Ideological
The October Revolution of 1917 led to the collapse of the Russian Empire. There was a disintegration of the former unified state space that had existed for several centuries. However, the Bolshevik idea of world revolution and the creation in the future of the World Federative Republic of Soviets forced a new unification process. An active role in the unification movement was played by the RSFSR, whose authorities were interested in restoring a unitary state on the territory of the former Russian Empire.
1.2 National politics 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 the 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 accounted for 57% of the population), but also in Europe , 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 fought for national independence during the Civil War (including the Ukrainian Central Rada, the Belarusian Socialist Community, the Turkic Musavat Party in Azerbaijan, the Kazakh Alash, etc.).
1.3 Political
In connection with the victory of Soviet power in 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 the 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. An economic division of labor has historically developed between individual 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 significance of this division increased after the end of the Civil War, when the task arose of restoring the ruined economy and overcoming the economic backwardness of the Soviet republics. Textile and woolen factories, tanneries, printing houses were transferred to the national republics and regions from the central provinces, 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 to fight world imperialism. A single military command was approved, economic councils, transport, commissariats of finance and labor were united. It is clear that in those conditions the management of the unified financial system was carried out from Moscow, just like 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 defeating the united forces of intervention.
2.2 Organizational-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 the unification of some people's commissariats began. As a result, the Supreme Council of National Economy of the RSFSR actually became the governing body for the industry of all the republics. In February 1921, the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR was created, headed by G.M. Krzhizhanovsky, also called to lead the implementation of a single economic plan. In August 1921, the Federal Committee for Land Affairs was established in the RSFSR, which regulated the development of agricultural production and land use throughout the country. Since the spring of 1921, in response to the instructions of V.I. Lenin about the economic association of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the creation of the Transcaucasian Federation began, organizationally taking shape in March 1922 (ZSFSR).
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) interests of all Soviet republics, to conclude any treaties and agreements on their behalf. The delegation of the RSFSR 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 was to create autonomies in the Russian Federation on a national, territorial, and economic basis. However, in the desire of the republics to strengthen their sovereign rights, a number of party workers, including People's Commissar for National Affairs I.V. Stalin, saw the main obstacle on the path 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 resulted in the creation of the Lithuanian-Belarusian Soviet Republic, the Tatar-Bashkir Soviet Republic (TBSR), the Mountain Republics, the Turkestan ASSR (which did not last long). Later, in the course of the struggle against pan-Turkism, the TBSR and the Buryat-Mongolian Autonomous Okrug were disbanded.
3.2 Forms of autonomy
In 1918 - 1922. peoples, mostly small and compactly living surrounded by Great Russian lands, received two levels of autonomy within the RSFSR:
1) republican - 11 autonomous republics (Turkestan, Bashkir, Karelian, Buryat, Yakut, Tatar, Dagestan, Gorskaya, etc.)
2) 10 regions (Kalmyk, Chuvash, Komi-Zyryansk, Adygei, Kabardino-Balkaria, etc.) and one autonomous Karelian labor commune (since 1923 an autonomous republic) received regional autonomy.
3.3 Contractual relations between the republics
bolshevik union soviet republic
Theoretically, the independent Soviet republics entered into contractual relations with the RSFSR. In 1918, the Council of People's Commissars recognized the independence of the Estonian 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 the national governments and the completion of the process of sovietization of the national outskirts, bilateral agreements on the military-economic union between Russia and Azerbaijan, the military and economic union between Russia and Belarus, union agreements 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 for foreign affairs.
3.4 Discussion in the RCP(b) on issues of state association
The federation was considered by the Bolsheviks as a transitional stage on the eve of the world revolution, as an obligatory step on the way 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 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. It 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 an indispensable condition for the rallying of peoples. He proposed the form of a federal union as a voluntary and equal association of independent Soviet republics, alienating on a parity basis a number of sovereign rights of the republics in favor of all-union bodies.
4. FORMATION OF THE UNION OF THE SSR AND NATIONAL STATE CONSTRUCTION
4.1 Preparatory work for the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR
Instructions 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 (October 6, 1922) recognized the need to conclude an agreement between Ukraine, Belarus, the Federation of 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 Parties 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 First Congress of Soviets of the USSR opened on December 30, 1922. 2,215 delegates took part in it. The size of the delegations from the republics was determined in proportion to the population in them. The largest was the Russian delegation - 1727 people. A report on the formation of the USSR was made by 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 legislated the principles of the structure of the union state: voluntariness, equality and cooperation on the basis of proletarian internationalism. Access to the union remained open to all Soviet republics. The agreement determined the procedure for the entry of individual republics into the USSR, the right of free exit, and 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 authority. 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 the government - SNK. Three types of commissariats were created (allied - foreign affairs, army and navy, foreign trade, communications, communications); unified (at the union and republican levels); Republican ( domestic politics, jurisprudence, public education). The OGPU received the status of a union commissariat. Allied bodies were also given powers to international defense borders, internal security, planning and budgeting. Proclaiming the federal principle of the state structure, 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 of Chapter IV), etc.
4.4 Unitary trends in state building in the USSR
Since the end of the 20s. many republican enterprises were transferred to the direct subordination of the union bodies, whose competence was significantly expanded in connection with the liquidation of the Supreme Council of National Economy in 1932. The number of allied and allied-republican people's commissariats grew. Since 1930, all lending has been concentrated in the allied bodies, in particular the State Bank of the USSR. The judicial system was centralized. At the same time, there was a restriction of the legislative initiative of the republics (in 1929, the right of the republics to directly raise questions 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 powers and rights of the USSR on the management of industry and finance is changing in the direction of their expansion, which was a consequence of the tightening of centralization of management.
4.5 Nation-state building
Since the adoption of the Constitution of 1924 and until 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; change in the state-legal form of some republics and autonomous regions; strengthening the role of the center, the federal authorities. In 1924, as a result of the national-state demarcation 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 - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, directly 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, Estonia and former Russian lands seized in 1918 by Romania (Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina) are included in the USSR.
5. TREATY AND DECLARATION ON THE FORMATION OF THE USSR
The Treaty on the Formation of the USSR is a document that legally formalizes and consolidates the unification 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 Soviets of the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, BSSR and TSFSR, 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, an integral part of which was 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 government controlled USSR, it was established what issues fall within their competence, the procedure for electing and the norms for the 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 were fixed, the composition of the Councils of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Union republics was determined, and the establishment of other central bodies was envisaged.
The treaty regulates the general principles of rule-making and the subordination of state bodies of the USSR and the union republics, establishes a system of subordination of acts issued by the union and republican bodies, which was of great importance for ensuring public administration in the conditions of the country's federal structure. The treaty established a single union citizenship for all citizens of the union republics and fixed the right of free exit from the Union of 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, formed 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, it is the need to restore the national economy, which was destroyed during World War I and the Civil War, and the socialist reconstruction of the economy. Ensuring the external security of the Soviet republics against the intrigues of international imperialism in 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 was a voluntary association of peoples with equal rights, in which each Soviet republic retained 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, the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR, and the 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. Entered as the 1st section into the Constitution of the USSR in 1924.
6. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FORMATION OF THE USSR
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 and culture, and to overcome the backwardness of some republics. In the course of nation-building, a policy was pursued of pulling up the backward national regions, achieving actual equality between them. For this purpose, factories, plants with equipment and part of qualified personnel were transferred from the RSFSR to Central Asia and the Transcaucasian Republic. This allocated allocations for irrigation, construction railways, electrification. Large tax deductions were made to the budgets of other republics.
6.2 Socio-cultural significance
There were certain positive results of the national policy of the Soviet government in the field of culture, education, and the healthcare system in the republics. In the 20s - 30s. national schools and theaters are being created; newspapers and literature in the languages of the peoples of the USSR are widely published. Some peoples for the first time receive a written language developed by scientists. Health issues were dealt with. So, if in the North Caucasus before 1917 there were 12 hospitals and only 32 doctors, then by 1939 there were 335 doctors working in Dagestan alone (of which 14% were representatives of the indigenous nationality). The Union of the Peoples of the USSR was one of the sources of victory over fascism in 1941-1945.
6.3 The impact of the administrative-command system on national politics
In fact, the sovereignty of the union republics remained nominal, since the 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 binding on the republican ones. Internationalism in its practical implementation began to be seen as the right to ignore the national identity and culture of peoples. The question was raised about the withering away of national-linguistic diversity along the path of advancement to communism. The Stalinist repressions in the republics and subsequent deportations of peoples had a negative impact on the national policy. At the same time, not only the peoples of the USSR, but to no lesser extent the Russian people themselves suffered from the struggle against nationalism. The administrative, unitary tendencies of the national policy of the USSR created the ground for the formation of potential hotbeds of future ethnic conflicts. At the same time, the Soviet leadership sought to suppress separatist tendencies in the national regions by creating a local bureaucracy there with the provision of visible independence for it under real strict control by the central government.
CONCLUSION
So, let us formulate the main provisions to which we have arrived in accordance with the purpose of our work.
Considering the prerequisites for the formation of the USSR, we have 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 colorful. 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. Undoubtedly, there were objective prerequisites for the unification of these peoples into a single state, which had deep historical, economic, political and cultural grounds. The formation of the USSR was not only an act of the Bolshevik leadership imposed from above. It was at the same time 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 the representatives of national movements say today, they objectively began to be bound by a common historical destinies, there were migrations, mixing of the population, 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 were created, an all-Russian market was formed, cultural, linguistic and other contacts were established. There were factors hindering the unification: the Russification policy of the old regime, the restriction and restriction of the rights of individual nationalities. The ratio of centripetal and centrifugal tendencies, which today are fighting with new force on the territory of the former USSR, is determined by a combination of many circumstances: the duration of the joint "residence" of various peoples, the presence of a densely populated territory, the number of nations, the strength of the "cohesion" of their ties, the presence or absence of its statehood, traditions, originality of 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 former, following the Bolsheviks, a "prison of peoples." The differences characteristic of Russia are striking - these are the integrity of the territory, the multi-ethnic nature of its settlement, the predominantly peaceful popular colonization, the absence of genocide in relation to other nations, the historical relationship and the similarity of the fate of individual peoples. The formation of the USSR also had its own political background - the need for the joint survival of the created political regimes in the face of a hostile external environment.
To determine the most expedient and rational forms of unification of the Soviet republics into a single state, a special commission of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was created, which from the very beginning had differences with the People's Commissariat of Nationalities. Stalin and his supporters (Dzerzhinsky, Ordzhonikidze, and others), mostly from among the so-called "Russians", i.e., non-Russians who had lost touch with their national environment, but acted as defenders of Russia's interests, put forward the idea of autonomizing these republics in part of the RSFSR. The cases in which precisely such groups are the carriers of great power represent a curious psychological phenomenon of human history.
Already at the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b), which marked the transition to NEP, Stalin, speaking with the main report on the national question, argued that it was the Russian Federation that was the living embodiment of the desired form of the state union of republics. Stalin's speech at the congress caused a stormy reaction. A member of the Turkestan Commission of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, G.I. Safarov, 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 bends of the Bolsheviks in Turkestan brought many troubles to the local population, to which at that time there was no end in sight, as evidenced by the growth of the rebel (Basmachi) 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 steps between them. However, Stalin and his supporters were not at all inclined to take into account the criticism of their position. This was clearly manifested in the process of nation-state building in Transcaucasia.
On December 0, 1922, at the Congress of Soviets, where the delegations of the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus and the TSFSR were represented, the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was proclaimed. The union was built according to the model worked out in Transcaucasia. The relevant Declaration and Treaty were adopted. The Declaration stated the reasons and principles for unification. The Treaty determined the relationship between the republics forming the union state. Formally, it was established as a federation of sovereign Soviet republics with the right to freely secede and open access into her. However, the "free exit" mechanism was not 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 in the jurisdiction of the Union republics. The All-Union Congress of Soviets was declared the supreme body of the country, 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, it is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that party functionaries, their whims and whims, play a large role in all events. They translate their actions into practice with the help of intrigues and behind-the-scenes maneuvers. The role of the representative bodies themselves is reduced to the approval of the 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 from the Bolshevik practice of attitudes that were incorrect from the point of view of resolving the national question of installations, and the straightening of the Stalinist line.
On the day when the formation of the union state took place, Lenin's work "On the Question of Nationalities and Autonomization" came out. In this work, Lenin's dissatisfaction with the whole history connected with the formation of the USSR, Stalin's untimely undertaking, which, in his opinion, "brought the whole thing into a swamp," shows through. However, Lenin's efforts, his attempts to "deal with" the manifestations of Great Russian chauvinism, to punish the perpetrators of the "Georgian incident" did not have any special consequences. The flow of events in the party rushed in the other direction and took place without the participation of Lenin. The struggle for his inheritance was already unfolding, in which the figure of Stalin rose more and more. It can be said that, having shown himself to be a supporter of the centralist state, abrupt and rude administrative decisions on the national question, Stalin changed little in his attitude to national politics, constantly emphasizing the dangers of nationalist manifestations and the need for their merciless suppression.
At the same time, the formation of a union state, despite the situation in which it took place, had many positive potentials, especially during the NEP period, when far from everything depended on Stalin and there was no rigid centralized planning and distribution system. In this sense, the creation of the USSR should be viewed not as the final, final act of nation-state 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 implementation.
The II All-Union Congress of Soviets, held in January 1924 on the days of mourning associated with the death of Lenin, adopted the union constitution, which was based on the Declaration and the Treaty, and the rest of its provisions were based on the principles of the constitution of the RSFSR 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 framework of the world community. However, the initial adherence of the Bolsheviks to the ideas of unitarism had a negative impact on the further development of statehood, which after 1936 was already carried out within the framework of the established administrative system. 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. Moscow: Politizdat, 1991.
2. History of Russia (IX - XX centuries): Tutorial/ Rev. editor Ya.A. Terepov. - M.; Rostov-on-Don, 2002.
3. History of Russia: Textbook for universities / Sh.M. Munchaev, Ustinov V.M. - M.: Ed. Group Infra - M - Norma, 1997.
4. Kara-Murza S.G. History of the State and Law of Russia. Moscow: Bylina Publishing House, 1998.
5. Kilseev E.I. History of the Fatherland XIX - XX centuries. Terms, concepts, personalities / Toolkit. Nizhny Novgorod: VVAGS edition, 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 2 volumes. M.: Humanit. ed. center VLADOS, 1998. - V.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 2 volumes. M.: TERRA, 1996. - V.2.
11. Russian archive. History of the Fatherland in evidence and documents of the XVIII-XX centuries. M.: Edition of the almanac "Russian archive", 2004.
12. Sokolov A.K. The course of Soviet history, 1917-1940: Proc. allowance for university students. - M.: Higher. school, 1999.
13. USSR. Encyclopedic reference book. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1982.
14. Reader on the history of Russia: Textbook / A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina; M.: Prospekt, 2002.
15. Shevelev V.N. The history of homeland. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2006.
16. encyclopedic Dictionary young historian. General history / Comp. N.S. Elmanova, E.M. Savicheva. - M.: Pedagogy-Press, 1994.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
The main prerequisites for the formation of the Soviet Union. Analysis of the principles of construction. Formation of new union republics. Characteristics of central and local authorities. The multistage nature of the electoral system. National policy of the USSR.
presentation, added 11/14/2013
Characteristics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Prerequisites for the formation of the USSR, the signing of the treaty. Adoption of the first Constitution of the USSR in 1924, its main provisions. Legislative and executive authorities. Supreme Court THE USSR.
presentation, added 12/12/2010
Mutual relations of the Soviet republics before the formation of the USSR. The entry of the republics and autonomous regions into the RSFSR. Bilateral treaties concluded between the independent republics and the RSFSR. Projects for the creation of a Soviet multinational state.
term paper, added 05/10/2016
Fight against world imperialism. Party and state bodies of Russia. Plans of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) for the rapprochement of the Soviet republics. First Congress of Soviets of the USSR. Declaration and Treaty of the Republics on the Formation of the USSR. The All-Union Congress of Soviets as the highest organ of power.
test, added 04/30/2009
Consequences of the First World War. Background and features of the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Discussion on the question of the forms of association. Features of the structure of the state and the principles of the new federation. Formation of new republics.
report, added 11/25/2011
History and circumstances of the signing of the agreement on the formation of the USSR on December 29, 1922, its content and basic Leninist principles, political background. The procedure for resolving issues of national diversity and autonomization in a young state.
abstract, added 09/10/2009
Analysis of the reasons, stages and alternative projects for the creation of the largest multinational state - the Soviet Union. The reason for the creation of the USSR is the legitimate desire of the ruling Bolshevik Party, headed by V.I. Lenin. The question of self-determination of peoples.
abstract, added 05/03/2015
Projects for the unification of the Soviet republics. The main stages of this process, its specifics and the creation of a legislative framework. Legal documents of the new state association. Actions that were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union, the rights of this body.
test, added 11/10/2010
Economic and social conditions for the preparation and adoption of the constitution of the USSR in 1924. Restructuring of the state apparatus in accordance with the constitution. The problematic nature of the relationship between the authorities and administration of the USSR and the Union republics.
abstract, added 11/16/2008
Establishment of contractual relations between the Soviet republics in the early 1920s. Creation of the Union of the USSR. Restructuring of the highest bodies of state power and local government in Ukraine in connection with the creation of the USSR. Ukrainization of the state apparatus.
In December 1920, the plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) considered the issue of a union treaty between the republics. The draft treaty worked out by the plenum was adopted by the governments of these republics. A little later, cooperation agreements with the RSFSR were also signed by Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, the Khorezm and Bukhara people's republics. According to these treaties, the armed forces, industry, finance, communications, transport, and diplomatic activity were united. The treaties were based on the principles of equality, mutual assistance and sovereignty. In fact, the leading role was played by the RSFSR.
The leading role of the RSFSR in the union was determined by a more significant contribution to achieving the victory of the socialist revolution and the civil war, to the economic and cultural development of the Soviet republics. industrial centers Russia supplied a significant part of its products to Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, primarily machinery, metal products, and textile goods. At the request of Ukraine, the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR issued large sums of money to finance restoration work in industry and transport, as well as to establish trade in the republic.
Received constant assistance from the Soviet government Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. In January 1919 alone, a loan of 10 million rubles was issued to Belarus from the cash funds of the State Bank, in February - 40 million rubles. In July 1919, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia were additionally allocated 43.5 million rubles.
In turn, Russia received cotton from Central Asia; from Ukraine - coal, metal, sugar; from Transcaucasia - oil, fruits, tobacco, tea.
The historically established and sufficiently developed transport network contributed to the strengthening of economic ties between the republics. The system of economic management also encouraged close economic unity. The most important branches of industry were under the control and management of the Supreme Economic Council of the RSFSR, tax and financial policy became centralized.
Common goals, unity of interests Soviet peoples, born in the joint struggle against oppression and slavery, contributed to the strengthening of the feeling of brotherhood and friendship of peoples. The desire for state unification existed in the republics themselves. In those years, the working people were convinced of the need for a union. Then it seemed that the USSR is a prototype of the unity and brotherhood of peoples, the contours of which are already visible on the horizon. Of course, there was a lot of pathos and hopes in all this. People sincerely believed that it would be so.
The state unification of the Soviet republics could only be realized as a union of peoples united on the basis of complete equality. “We want a voluntary union of nations,” Lenin emphasized, “such an alliance that would not allow any violence of one nation against another, such an alliance that would be based on complete trust, on a clear consciousness of fraternal unity, on completely voluntary consent. Such an alliance cannot be realized all at once, it must be worked out with the greatest patience and caution....”1 The RCP(b) was guided by these instructions from Lenin. It proceeded from the fact that the republics should be endowed with equal powers and rights, regardless of the number of population, the size of the territory and the level of development of their economy.
The party took care that, within the framework of the union state, relations between the republics were built on the principle of democratic centralism. This made it possible to more fully take into account both the common interests and the specifics of each nation, helped to creatively implement the Leninist national policy, to carry out planned management of all national economy. Lenin stressed that democratic centralism presupposes broad initiative and independence of local authorities. “Bureaucratic interference in purely local matters,” he wrote, “is one of the greatest obstacles to economic and political development in general and in particular one of the obstacles to centralism in the serious, in the cool, in the main.
The question of the formation of a single union state was put forward almost simultaneously by all the Soviet republics. This indicated that the conditions for unification were ripe. In March 1922, the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Ukraine, confirming the desire of the Ukrainian communists to further strengthen the state union of the Ukrainian SSR with the RSFSR, declared the need to specify the legal relations between the two republics. On May 11, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) created . Frunze commission to study the proposals of the Ukrainian communists. This commission developed draft agreements on relations between the people's commissariats of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR. “From the course of the work of the commission,” said Frunze, “it soon became clear that it was impossible to confine ourselves to discussing the question only of the relationship between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR. The developing trade relations demanded the establishment of a single currency for the entire Soviet Federation, the abolition of customs barriers, and any restrictions when visiting the Union ports by the courts of the Soviet republics. the whole country.
Unfortunately, not all of the plans came true. In those years, we had to face considerable difficulties and contradictions. The conflict around the so-called "Georgian incident" continued, which to a certain extent reflected Stalin's desire to resolve national issues using the administrative-command method. At that moment, Stalin used this conflict to settle accounts with a number of communists in Georgia.
The years immediately preceding the formation of the USSR became a period of intensive penetration of the ideals of internationalism into the sphere of national relations.
In fact, by the summer of 1922, the Soviet government completed the unification of territories that had not been interconnected for five years before, into a system of planetary republics revolving around the RSFSR.
The formation of the Soviet Union took place in the conditions of acute political struggle. In August, the Central Committee of the RCP(b) created a commission to prepare a draft decision on relations between the RSFSR and the independent republics. It included I.V. Stalin, V.V. Kuibyshev, G.K. Ordzhonikidze, S.A. Agamali-ogly (Azerbaijan), A.G. Myasnikov (Armenia), B.G. Mdivani (Georgia), A.G. Chervyakov (Belarus) and others.
The convocation of the commission was entrusted to Kuibyshev. The commission was faced with the task of determining the form and principles of association. This question became the cause of a serious dispute between V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin. Stalin spoke in favor of "a single economic organism on the united territory of the Soviet republics with a leading center in Moscow", and, consequently, for the extension of the "competencies" of the central government bodies of the RSFSR to all other Soviet republics. According to this project, known as the “autonomization” project, the republics were supposed to join the RSFSR as autonomous. In fact, this meant the absorption of the republics Russian Federation. The project sparked a heated debate. It was supported only by the Criminal Code of the Communist Parties of Azerbaijan and Armenia, which were striving for an early unification, without attaching importance to the form of this unification. Belarus preferred contractual relations. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia rejected the Stalinist project. Rykovsky, one of the leaders of the Ukrainian communists, also opposed.
IN AND. Lenin did not take part in the initial consideration of the issue, he was ill and was in Gorki. It wasn't until late September that he learned about the project and the controversy it caused. IN AND. Lenin came out sharply against the idea of autonomization, seeing in it a poorly disguised expression of the old "Great Russian chauvinism", a retreat from the principles of proletarian internationalism. On September 26, Lenin wrote a letter to the members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), in which he emphasized that the unification of the republics is a paramount issue, in which haste is unacceptable and proposed a fundamentally new basis for creating a union state - a voluntary association of independent republics, including the RSFSR, into the Union Soviet Socialist Republics with the preservation of the equality of each of them. Lenin wrote that we, the RSFSR, “recognize ourselves as equal in rights with the Ukrainian SSR and others, and together and on an equal footing with them enter into a new union, a new federation…”1
Instead of the mechanical subordination of the republican authorities to the highest authority of the RSFSR, Lenin proposed to form something like a federal All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the USSR. Lenin in this situation took into account not only the political, but also the socio-moral aspects of the striving of the working masses of the country for state independence and unification. He could not help condemning administration, haste, inattention to national feelings. The Politburo approved a line different from that proposed by Stalin's commission. Thus, the federal plan prevailed, embodying the principal instructions of Lenin, in which all republics were guaranteed equal rights within the Union of Soviet Republics and each was theoretically granted the right to freely secede from the Union.
In November-December, the creation of the USSR was prepared by the work of various commissions, party meetings, an explanatory political campaign in the outlying republics, as well as republican congresses of Soviets, at which proposals were approved to begin unification on a federal basis.
The issues of the unification of the republics were given a large place on the pages of the central and local press.
Created by the decision of the October Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party, by the end of November 1922, the commission prepared a draft of the Main Points of the Constitution of the USSR. On November 30, this document was approved by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) and sent to the Communist Parties of the national republics for discussion.
The Fundamental Clauses of the Constitution of the USSR, approved by the leading Soviet party bodies, constituted a program for drawing up a resolution on the formation of the USSR.
On December 18, the plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) considered the draft Union Treaty on the formation of the USSR and spoke in favor of convening the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The plenum emphasized that the Union Treaty and the Declaration should come into force only after they were approved by the sessions of the Central Executive Committees of the republics, then elected at the All-Union Congress of Soviets by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR. It was planned that the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR would approve these documents only in the main, after which work on them would be continued. This ensured the most democratic procedure for the adoption of these documents.
The Party's initiative was ardently supported by the peoples of all Soviet republics. The 7th All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, held in December 1922, expressed the readiness of the Ukrainian people to join the Union of Republics. The working people of Byelorussia at their meetings also called for the creation of a union state. The IV All-Belarusian Congress of Soviets, fulfilling the numerous orders of the working people of the republic, adopted a resolution on the formation of the USSR.1
Together with all the peoples of the country, the idea of the formation of the USSR was welcomed by the communists and the working people of Transcaucasia.
The decision approving the formation of the USSR was also taken by the communist parties of Azerbaijan and Armenia. The 2nd Party Conference of Communist Organizations in Transcaucasia fully supported Lenin's plan for the formation of the Union State. The position of a group of former members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia was qualified as a nationalist bias.1
The voluntary unification of the Soviet republics on the basis of complete equality was ardently supported by the communists and non-party workers of the RSFSR. On December 23, 1922, the 10th All-Russian Congress of Soviets opened in Moscow. The All-Russian Congress recognized as timely the unification of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the ZSFSR and the BSSR into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and authorized the delegation of the RSFSR elected by it to develop and discuss together with the delegations of other union republics the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR and the Union Treaty.2 The plenipotentiary delegations of the fraternal republics unanimously approved these documents , signed them and submitted for approval to the All-Union Congress of Soviets.
The First All-Union Congress of Soviets opened on December 30, 1922. 2215 delegates took part in its work - 1667 with a decisive vote, the rest with an advisory vote.
The congress heard Stalin's report on the Declaration and the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR and basically approved them. The RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus, the Transcaucasian Federation together formed a new state - the USSR.
The All-Russian Central Executive Committee was elected. Kalinin, Norimanov, Petrovsky and Chervyakov became its four chairmen - one from each republic.
Consider the Declaration and Treaty on the Formation of the USSR.
The declaration noted the historical significance of the formation of the USSR. Only in a single state union, the Declaration pointed out, can the peoples of the country ensure their independence, economic and cultural prosperity, and external security.
The Treaty on the Formation of the USSR emphasized that the independent Soviet republics: the RSFSR, the ZSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR voluntarily and on equal terms enter into a state union and transfer a number of their powers to the supreme bodies of the central state power. The treaty provided that the competence of the federal government included international trade, naval and foreign affairs, railway transport and the corresponding all-Union people's commissariats are formed.
Thus, on December 30, 1922, the USSR was created by the will of the peoples of our country - the world's first single union multinational state of workers and peasants.
The very structure of the USSR, the rights and obligations of the united republics, the nature of their relations were supposed to exclude any possibility of manifestations of both great-power chauvinism and local nationalism.
On the basis of agreements on the formation of the USSR and entry into it, the Constitution of the USSR was adopted, prepared by a commission headed by Kalinin and approved by the II Congress of Soviets of the USSR on January 31, 1924. The USSR Constitution of 1924 legislated the internationalist foundations of the relations between the nations and nationalities of the Soviet Union. The equality of people in all spheres was fixed public life regardless of nationality or race. A single Soviet citizenship was introduced.
Numerous territorial changes took place in the following years. In 1924, the Turkmen and Uzbek SSRs were formed, as well as the Tajik ASSR, which was previously part of Uzbekistan. In March 1931, it became part of the USSR.
The importance of the formation of the USSR cannot be underestimated. The union was a great political undertaking. In an era when the very spread of capitalism over the entire globe caused a crisis, and even the collapse of the old empires, it was in such an era that a vast supranational state was born. The Union State created new opportunities for involving the working people of all nations and nationalities in socialist construction, provided political and economic background for the transition of backward peoples and ethnic groups to socialism, bypassing the capitalist stage of development. The formation of the USSR was of great international importance, it was a major milestone in the social progress of mankind. The Commonwealth of Peoples united in the USSR has become a beacon for the oppressed peoples of the world fighting for national independence.
The USSR was legally concluded, it existed in political, economic, scientific, technical and simply human relations. For most people, it has become a necessity, a living space.
The USSR existed for 70 years. During this time, a long, difficult and controversial path has been traveled. Industrialization, collectivization was carried out, a cultural revolution took place.
Socialism was built in our country, a spaceship was launched for the first time. The country was the second in the world, and it was inhabited by 100 nations and nationalities.
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
