Formation of the USSR (1917-1924)

Formation of the USSR (1917-1924)

Conclusion

The creation of the USSR was not a one-time act, but was the result of a rather long, multi-stage path, which showed how difficult and, at the same time, how important the creation of a new type of state was. Its formation was the result of an intense exchange of views, sometimes heated discussions, during which various proposals and approaches emerged, but the task was to develop an optimal option that could best combine the interests of the center and the outskirts of the country that went through the most serious trials of the beginning of the 20th century. The most powerful national movements of that time demanded that all political parties come to grips with the national question and develop their own formula for its resolution. There was clearly a struggle between these political parties to enlist the support of the so-called nationalists.

At the Seventh (April) All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP (b), V. I. Lenin for the first time put forward the idea of creating a union of Soviet republics and, in essence, since that time, the Bolshevik Party, which previously professed the principle of centralism and built its national program primarily on the principles internationalism and the right of nations to self-determination, includes in its program the principle of federalism. In 1917, it was the federalists who were in the majority on the national outskirts and outnumbered both the unifiers and the secessionists. The creation of a federation made it possible to preserve a single country and at the same time take into account the wishes of its many peoples. But foreign intervention and the Civil War made significant adjustments to the assumptions of the era of the revolutions of 1917. Formally independent bourgeois republics were created on a number of outskirts,

One of the most important stages on the path to unification was the military union of the Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Belarus on June 1, 1919, which provided for close unification not only in the military field, but also in the field of economic, financial and communications with the recognition of independence , freedom and self-determination of national republics. On the whole, a number of Soviet republics retained their sovereignty and pursued their own not only domestic but also foreign policy, maintaining diplomatic ties with foreign countries. The end of the bloody Civil War, the difficult foreign policy situation required the establishment of not only a unified military and economic policy, but also coordination, and then the implementation of a unified foreign policy.

In the first half of 1922, the question of the further unification of the Soviet republics was put on a practical footing. A so-called autonomization plan is being developed, which provided for the inclusion of the rest of the independent Soviet republics into the RSFSR on the principles of national autonomy. This approach did not receive support in Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus, and to replace it, V. I. Lenin proposes another plan - the plan for the union of the republics, with the creation of a new top management floor, a plan that a prominent specialist in national relations S. I. Yakubovskaya called "brilliant idea of the formation of the USSR. [1] This plan was the basis for the formation of the USSR, having gone through numerous discussions, both in the center and in the field.

However, the proclamation of a new state at the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR on December 30, 1922 still required a lot of follow-up work in order to put these ideas into practice. This work was completed at the next Congress of Soviets of the USSR, which approved the first Constitution of the USSR, which was already in force on July 6, 1923. The sovereignty of the union republics under this Constitution, of course, was limited, it became noticeably less significant than it was by the end of 1922, but on the whole the USSR protected the sovereign rights of the union republics, each of them had the right to freely secede from the Union, had its own constitutions, supreme and executive bodies, the right to use their own language and develop national culture.

In the numerous domestic literature published on the history of the formation of the USSR [2] , one can find disagreement about what really was the Soviet Union as a state entity. On the whole, Soviet literature was dominated by the assertion that the USSR was a federal state. [3] Among foreign historians, a greater range of opinions is noticeable. The English researcher E. H. Carr directly wrote that “the USSR was a federation in its purest form. It was created by agreement between formally equal sovereign states, and the Constitution voluntarily recognized the continued sovereignty of the subjects of the federation. [4] The concept of the American historian R. Pipes, the author of a special book entitled "The Formation of the Soviet Union", which went through several editions, is noticeably different from his views. According to Pipes, the formation of the USSR was the result of conquest, and he presents this state as a purely centralized, unitary and even totalitarian state. [5] In foreign literature, the USSR was also, at times, presented as a new type of empire, without taking into account the serious changes that took place in the country after 1917. It is surprising that such an interpretation manifested itself in the USSR at the end of its existence and, especially, after it. destruction. [6]

Almost simultaneously in the literature there were completely different points of view on the Soviet union statehood. [7] It has been called both super-centralized, federal, and empire. At the same time, there is undoubtedly a significant difference between the system that existed under the tsarist system and the power built after 1917. The power that received the name Soviet meant a combination of direct, industrial political democracy combined with social democracy, the latter having priority. But the power of the Soviets in the USSR was in practice combined with the leading and guiding role of the Communist Party. This provision was written in the last Constitution of the USSR, in 1977, but, in fact, it existed all the years of the Soviet era. Subsequently, after the destruction or, as they also write not without reason, the defeat of the USSR[8] when searching for the causes of the death of the USSR, they began to look for the initial factors of this finale, turning to the so-called origins. And, again, they have been defined differently in the literature. [nine]

One of the reasons was seen in the principle of "the right of nations to self-determination up to secession." As shown in this book, it really became one of the cornerstones of the national policy of the USSR and was prompted by the specific historical conditions of the early 20th century. During the preparation of the second Constitution of the USSR in 1936, there were proposals either to amend its 17th article, or to completely exclude it, that is, to exclude the article that spoke of the preservation of the right of the union republics to freely secede from the USSR. Stalin, who made a report on this Constitution at the Extraordinary VIII All-Union Congress of Soviets on November 25, 1936, categorically opposed this proposal. At the same time, he stressed: “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.”[10]

In a country in which 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 as a historical, social and psychological community was added over time. This new principle especially spoke about itself during the trials of the Great Patriotic War. In his speeches and orders, starting with a radio speech 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",[11]

The awareness of themselves as the Soviet people by various nations of the USSR was confirmed by subsequent sociological surveys, as was Soviet patriotism. [12] It is no coincidence that it was against the Soviet people that the blow of the enemies of the USSR was directed, first of all. 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 there were Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, etc. In the early 80s. 20th century in the USSR, two trends were traced in national relations. 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 in 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. [13] In addition, there was a process of increasing interethnic marriages, which reached by the 80s. fifteen %. Therefore, much depended on how skillfully interethnic relations in the USSR would be regulated.

The specific practice in this area in the era of the so-called perestroika demonstrated not only the inability to regulate interethnic relations, but also the desire to aggravate them. Their 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 the social form of 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, was changing, and then was replaced by another system in which the Soviet principles of national relations could no longer act. Under these conditions, the disintegration of the country took place. There was no fault of the people who created the USSR at one time. They solved their problem. At the turn of the 80s - 90s. 20th century 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 three-fourths of its participants stood for the preservation of the USSR. Even in those republics where the holding of this referendum was disrupted, many of their inhabitants took part in the voting and, as a rule, spoke out for the USSR. that three-fourths of its participants stood for the preservation of the USSR. Even in those republics where the holding of this referendum was disrupted, many of their inhabitants took part in the voting and, as a rule, spoke out for the USSR. that three-fourths of its participants stood for the preservation of the USSR. Even in those republics where the holding of this referendum was disrupted, many of their inhabitants took part in the voting and, as a rule, spoke out for the USSR.

However, the USSR was nevertheless destroyed, 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 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, 60% of respondents also expressed regret over the liquidation of the USSR, the same percentage of those who regretted the USSR was recorded during a sociological survey in Moldova in August of the same year on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the independence of the republic. 15 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 that country,

[1] Yakubovskaya S. I. Decree. cit., p.21.

[2]Genkina E. B. Education of the USSR. 2nd ed. M., 1947; Yakubovskaya SI. Unity movement for the formation of the USSR (1917–1922). M., 1947; Chigirev I.S. The Bolshevik Party is the organizer of the USSR. M., 1949; Zlatopolsky D. L. Formation and development of the USSR as a union state. M., 1953; Zenushkina I. S. Soviet national policy and bourgeois historians: the formation of the Soviet multinational state (1917–1922) in modern American historiography. M., 1971; Buldakov V.P., Kuleshov SV. History of the formation of the USSR and criticism of its falsifiers. M., 1982; Galilov S. V. I. Lenin - the organizer of the Soviet multinational state. M., 1972; Zlatopolsky D. L., Chistyakov O. I. Education of the USSR. M., 1972; The formation of the USSR is the triumph of Lenin's national policy. Pyatigorsk, 1972; Chugaev D.A. The Communist Party is the organizer of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. M., 1972; Radzhabov S. A. Formation and development of the USSR - the triumph of Lenin's national policy. Dushanbe, 1973; The formation of the USSR is the triumph of Lenin's national policy. L., 1973; Lepeshkin A. I. Soviet federalism (Theory and practice), M., 1977; Nenarokov A.P. For a free union of free peoples (From the history of the unification movement, 1917–1924). M., 1989; Yakovlev A. New Soviet Union. M., 1995. For a free union of free peoples (From the history of the unification movement, 1917-1924). M., 1989; Yakovlev A. New Soviet Union. M., 1995. For a free union of free peoples (From the history of the unification movement, 1917-1924). M., 1989; Yakovlev A. New Soviet Union. M., 1995.

[3] See: Zlatopolsky D. L. The USSR is a federal state. M., 1966; Shevtsov VG Sovereignty of the Soviet state. M., 1972; Tadevosyan E. V. Soviet federalism, p. 45–65; Ayvazyan N. A. Federation and national relations // What to do? In search of ideas for improving interethnic relations in the USSR. M., 1989, p. 139–145.

[4] Carr EH The Bolshevik revolution, 1917–1923. London, 1969. Vol. l, p.411.

[5] Pipes R. The formation of the Soviet Union. New York, 1968, p. 293–296; see also: Hagen M. The history of Russia as the history of empire: perspectives of the federalist approach.//Russian Empire in foreign historiography. M., 2005; Hirsch F. Empire of Nations. Ithaca-London, 2005.

[6] See, for example, the special chapter titled "The Phenomenon of the Soviet Empire: Contradictions of National Policy" in the two-volume "Political History of Russia-USSR-Russian Federation". T.2, p. 274–317.

[7] Arkhipova T. G. The unitary nature of the structure of the USSR // Russia in the XX century, p. 280–291.

[8] See: Shevyakin A.P. The defeat of the Soviet state. From "thaw" to "perestroika". M., 2005.

[9] See: Semenov V. M., Iordan M. V., Babakov V. G., Sagamonov V. A. International contradictions and conflicts in the USSR. M., 1991.

[10] I.V. Stalin. Works. T. 14, p. 140.

[11] Ibid., pp. 58, 94, 102, 130, 147, 151, 168, 220, 228.

[12] The Soviet people - a new historical community of people, p.404.

[13] Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. M., 1972, p. 4–5.