Formation of the USSR (1917-1924)

Formation of the USSR (1917-1924)

Local movement

The work of the Commission on October 6, however, did not take place in private conditions. It was closely connected with the general movement for the creation of the USSR, an organized movement, of course, but nonetheless worthy of independent study. Each republic, with all the general features of this movement, had its own characteristics, and a careful study of the surviving documents reveals certain nuances that are not typical for other republics. The very complex national relations in the Transcaucasus, nevertheless, managed to be noticeably settled, and in this result one cannot help but see the special role of the Communist Party. Another April 14, 1921 In a letter to the communists of the Caucasus, V. I. Lenin emphasized: “Warmly welcoming the Soviet republics of the Caucasus, I allow myself to express the hope that their close union will create a model of national peace, unprecedented under the bourgeoisie and impossible in the bourgeois system.” [one]

Each Transcaucasian republic had its own problems and advantages. We have already touched briefly on the situation in Georgia in connection with the so-called "Georgian case". Let us turn to its neighbor Armenia. Little Armenia in 1918–1920 I had to endure two wars with Turkey and two armed conflicts with Azerbaijan and Georgia, which may well be called wars. According to the Batumi Treaty in the summer of 1918 The territory of Armenia was limited only by the Erivan and Etchmiadzin counties. During the second Armenian-Turkish war, Armenia was on the verge of disaster, as Turkish troops came close to Erivan. On November 18, 1920, the Armenian Dashnak government was forced to conclude a truce, and 11 days later, on November 29, Soviet power was established in Armenia. Soviet power was a salvation for the Armenian Republic, as it provided support for Soviet Russia. [2] The border between Armenia and Turkey was determined by the Soviet-Turkish treaty signed on March 16, 1921 d. In general, thanks to Soviet power, the major bloody conflicts in Transcaucasia ceased. The Armenian people were well aware of this. Without taking into account these events, it is impossible to understand the mood in Armenia, where the people wanted peace and elementary protection of the individual. Therefore, the relevant resolutions adopted at the congresses of county and city councils were undoubtedly sincere and reflected the mood of the majority.

In November 1922, the II Congress of Soviets of the Erivan district took place, at which the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia G. Megrabyan made a report on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. According to this report, on November 27, a resolution was adopted, where, among other things, one can read: “The Congress finds that only a close union of the Soviet republics will give them a quick revival and successful construction of the Great Soviet Federation, Long live the Great Soviet Federation!” A few days later, on November 30, a similar resolution was adopted by the II Congress of the Karkalis district of Armenia. The congress sent a greeting to the Union Council of the Transcaucasian Federation and asked in it "to accelerate the final implementation of the idea of union by joining the Transcaucasian Federation into a single federation of Soviet republics in full confidence that the day is not far off when the union of federal republics will become a fait accompli." On the same day, the Erivan City Council also sent greetings to the Union Council of the Transcaucasian Federation, signed by the Chairman of the City Council D. Ter-Simonyan. It wrote: "The Erivan City Council expresses unshakable confidence in the victory of the working people of Transcaucasia, united in one common revolutionary family, and is convinced that the path of common construction goes through the union of Soviet republics."[3]

Of course, these congresses of Soviets were organized by the party bodies of Armenia, as well as by the Zakkraykom, but they were clearly not copied and did not meet with opposition from the participants in these congresses. And the resolutions themselves differed in their wording, testifying to the independent work of their drafters. Similar congresses were held at that time in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani people also went through a period of serious trials.

As early as October 31 (November 13), 1917, the Baku Soviet was the first in Transcaucasia to pass a resolution on the transfer of power to the Soviet. Soon the first Soviet republic in Transcaucasia was formed. But in the summer of 1918, under the pressure of its internal and external opponents, Soviet power in Baku and other regions of Azerbaijan fell. It was restored under the conditions of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict of 1919-1920. and, as in Armenia, brought peace by putting an end to massacres. [4]

At the end of November 1922, the Congress of Soviets of the Salyan district of Azerbaijan was held. Of the 85 participants, 25 were members of the Communist Party, the remaining 60 were non-party. The congress welcomed the news of the unification of the Transcaucasian republics. Soon a similar congress was held in the Nukhinsky district of Azerbaijan. Interestingly, Lenin, Narimanov and Agamali oglu were elected honorary chairmen of the congress. The latter joined the Communist Party only in 1920, but in 1922 he was elected Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of Azerbaijan. [five] This congress was attended by 81 delegates and a report on the federation of the Soviet republics was made by G. G. Sultanov, who in April 1920 was a member of the Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan, which led the uprising against the Musavat government. Sultanov's report was unanimously approved. That is, the federation of Soviet republics was supported at this congress. [6] However, the resolution did not say which federation was in question. The resolution of the Salyan district referred to the Transcaucasian Republic. It was also about the federation as a whole. But such formulations, by no means, testify to the denial of the creation of the USSR in Azerbaijan. It is known, for example, that the Baku City Council adopted a decision approving the formation of the USSR. [7]

As for Georgia, where the situation was more complicated than in other Transcaucasian republics, there were also meetings in support of the creation of the USSR. On November 10, the resolution of the III Congress of Trade Unions of Abkhazia on the current situation was adopted. Among other things, it explicitly stated that the idea of creating a single and powerful Union of Soviet Socialist Republics "has matured and is fully realized by the working people of Transcaucasia." This resolution expressed confidence in the implementation in the shortest possible time of the idea of creating a union on a contractual basis, which would include the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasian Federation. A few days later, a similar resolution was adopted at its meeting by the Komsomol organization in Akhaltsikhe, Georgian SSR. As it was written there, the resolution was adopted unanimously and it contained a call for the urgent implementation of the idea of a union of Soviet republics so that[eight]

Somewhat later, on November 26, 1922, at their meeting, the working people of the Dranda volost of the Gumista district of Abkhazia also adopted their resolution on supporting the policy of the Communist Party “in the sense of creating a union of Soviet republics. At the same time, we stigmatize those who agitate against such a policy!” [nine] In this volost, quite far from Tiflis, they apparently knew about the struggle around the creation of the USSR, although they did not name who campaigned against the creation of the USSR. It is unlikely that it was about the leaders of the Georgian Communist Party, apparently there were other forces opposed to the idea of creating a union of republics. In another autonomous republic, also part of Georgia, Adzharia, support for the creation of a union of republics was received at meetings of workers in the main city of the autonomy, Batum - metalworkers, builders, loaders, public catering, and transport workers. It was about meetings at which the workers "with tremendous enthusiasm passed resolutions on the need to create a union of co-republics."

Information was also received from the Georgian city of Dusheta, where, as it was reported on December 3 in the Tiflis newspaper Zarya Vostoka, a crowded rally of workers and Red Army soldiers took place, at which a resolution was also adopted in support of the union of the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasian Federation. In Tiflis itself, on December 4, 1922, the Plenum of the Tiflis Soviet of Workers' and Red Army Deputies was held. A report at this plenum was made by I. D. Orakhelashvili, at that time the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the TSFSR, a member of the presidiums of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the Transcaucasian Regional Committee of the RCP (b). According to his report, a resolution was also adopted in support of the formation of the USSR, it was specially emphasized that it would include four republics, including the Transcaucasian Republic, and it was emphasized:[10]

At the same time, work was underway to prepare the First Transcaucasian Congress of Soviets and draft the Constitution of the Transcaucasian Federation. On November 14, 1922, at a meeting of representatives of the executive committees of the Caucasian republics, the viability of the Transcaucasian Federation and the need for closer ties between the peoples of Transcaucasia and other Soviet republics were noted. To this end, it was decided to convene the Transcaucasian Congress of Soviets on December 10 in Baku. The norm of representation was stipulated, and that Nakhichevan, Adjaristan and the South Ossetian region could delegate their representatives directly. Even then, the agenda of this congress and the corresponding organizing committee were developed. The resolution was signed by the chairmen of the CEC of the three Transcaucasian republics S. Agamali oglu, S. Ambartsumyan and F. Makharadze. [eleven]

November 27, 1922 in Tiflis, the first meeting of the Commission of the Transcaucasian Regional Committee for the development of the Constitution of the Transcaucasian Federation was held. Members of the Commission were present - Lominadze, Mikhailov, Myasnikov, Narimanov, Orakhelashvili and Eliava. First of all, we discussed issues of the general nature of the Constitution, the development of its text, as well as various bodies of the Transcaucasian Federation. On the same day, Eliava and Mikhailov were instructed to work out the text of the Constitution within six days and submit it to the Commission for consideration. [12] Joint work was carried out by Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Georgians, Russians, and this was in a region where the most acute interethnic conflicts had recently taken place. The creation of the federation undoubtedly helped to eliminate the most acute contradictions and therefore its role can be regarded as positive.

Activities in favor of the creation of the USSR were also held in all regions of Ukraine. On October 21, 1922, a plenary meeting of the Vinnytsia City Council of Workers and Red Army Deputies was held, at which a report was made by the chairman of the Podolsk Provincial Executive Committee V. I. Porayko, who reported on the work of the 3rd session of the CEC of Ukraine of the VI convocation. The Council supported the resolution of the session on the question of relations between the Soviet republics in the form of the projected Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, noted the enormous political and economic significance of this resolution for the Soviet republics, and stressed the need for the speedy implementation of this resolution, since it "is a guarantee of strengthening the world's first socialist Soviet republics. [13] On November 22, the V Congress of Soviets of the Nikolaevsky district of the Odessa region took place. A report was heard on the external and internal situation of the Soviet republics and the organized attack of international capital on the working class was noted. The answer to this offensive, as noted in the adopted resolution, should be a united front of workers and peasants. And the first step of this front will be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This resolution also contains support for the creation of the USSR. [14]

On December 1, the 7th Congress of Soviets of Yekaterinoslav Governorate adopts a resolution supporting the Union of Socialist Republics. The congress instructed its delegates at the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets to seek approval of this resolution and transfer it to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. [15] On the same day, a similar resolution was adopted by the Congress of Soviets of the Akhtyrsky district of the Kharkov province. It also focused on the actions of the international counter-revolution and concluded: “Proceeding from the interests of creating the power of the proletarian republics, the congress considers that the issue of uniting the Soviet republics into a single union center is urgent, and insists on its immediate implementation.” [16] The materials of the III Congress of Soviets of the Volyn Province, which was held in Zhytomyr from November 19 to December 1, 1922, were also published. Chairman of the Gubernia Executive Committee Kharlamov spoke on the issue of the immediate tasks of the domestic and international policy of the Soviet government. In general, it spoke about the threat of a new world war. And, again, the following arguments appear in the resolution: “In order to achieve maximum success, both in the field of economic construction, and also in protecting the interests of the Soviet republics from possible attempts by the capitalist states, the congress considers it timely and extremely necessary to put before the upcoming congresses of Soviets the question of establishing closer ties between the Soviet republics...” [17]

The 7th Congress of Soviets of the Kharkov Province worked in Kharkov from December 5 to 9, 1922. 345 delegates with a decisive vote and 9 with an advisory vote attended the congress. The overwhelming majority of the delegates were members of the Communist Party. The report "Our Internal and International Situation" was made by M. V. Frunze, at that time Deputy Chairman of the Ukrainian Council of People's Commissars. The congress also heard a report on the work of the provincial executive committee and other reports and speeches. In a special resolution on Soviet construction, it was written: “Our fortress is not only in our power, but also in the power of our fraternal republics” and was further supported as the correct idea of creating the USSR, it was said about a united government and even emphasized which people's commissariats should be subordinate to it . Commissariats of industry, finance, military and maritime affairs were listed, means of communication, post and telegraph, foreign trade, domestic trade, foreign affairs. The Kharkiv delegation at the All-Ukrainian Congress was instructed to "support in every possible way the idea of a free association at the will of the republics themselves..."[eighteen]

The III Congress of Soviets of the Podolsk province worked from December 1 to December 5, 1922. 321 people attended the congress, and on the initiative of Samoylenko, a delegate from the Bratslav district, who proposed to support the resolution of the 3rd session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the relationship of the Soviet republics, a resolution of the congress was adopted. It was a resolution supporting the resolution "on the formation of a great united Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." Among other things, the resolution considered to note the following point: “In the great union of free socialist Soviet republics, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, while maintaining its state integrity, will resolutely move towards the final liberation of the workers and peasants of the whole world from the shameful fetters of capital.” [nineteen]

Measures to support the formation of the USSR were also held in all regions of Belarus. On the eve of the IV All-Belarusian Congress of Soviets, 116 volost congresses of Soviets, 6 district congresses of Soviets, as well as numerous delegate meetings and district party conferences were held to discuss the formation of the USSR. [twenty] On December 10, 1922, a conference of non-party workers and employees of the city of Minsk adopted its decision on the future union of the republics. A. G. Chervyakov spoke at the conference, who, as already noted, was both the chairman of the Central Executive Committee and the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR. In his report, he paid much attention to economic affairs, but he also singled out the questions of the creation of the USSR. A specially adopted resolution addressed to the future IV All-Belarusian Congress of Soviets, among other things, also contained an order to the congress on the need for closer ties between all Soviet republics, "while maintaining the influence of each Soviet republic on the affairs of the entire Union of Soviet Republics." [21] The resolution was adopted on the report of the head of the republic and, of course, with his direct participation, and the last phrase speaks volumes. The drafters of the resolution, defending the idea of uniting the republics, also wanted to preserve the influence of Belarus on the affairs of the entire future Union.

Three days later, on December 13, 1922, the Minsk City Council adopted a similar resolution. As for the phrase about the preservation of the influence of each Soviet republic on the affairs of the entire Union of Soviet Republics, it was repeated word for word, [22] testifying to the participation in its compilation of the same forces. At the same time, this by no means testified to the indifference of the masses to the events taking place in the country. One of the reports of the Central Bureau of the Communist Party of Belarus, apparently, did not go against the truth, when it was written that "not only in the party, but also in the ranks of the broad masses of the working people, there are absolutely no opponents of the creation of a union of republics." [23] Indeed, at the very end of 1922 the situation in the country became noticeably better than it was at its beginning or even in the middle. The influence of a good harvest, as well as the end of the Civil War, affected not only in general, but also in general. The return of Vladivostok and the whole of Primorye was also of considerable psychological significance. In general, more than 90% of the territory of old Russia was united, and since Poland and Finland were granted independence, the claims of the Soviet state were limited only to certain territories, for example, Bessarabia, with which the Soviet government never agreed to separate from the Land of Soviets.

Already in an additional information letter to a brief review of the political and economic state of the RSFSR for October-November 1922, compiled on December 2, the GPU gave a picture of “a very rapidly progressing elimination of the tax crisis and discontent in the countryside and no less rapidly progressive slowdown, and in some places even a stop in the October economic crisis in the city. [24] In the next brief review of the socio-economic condition of the RSFSR for December of the same year, drawn up in January 1923, a progressive improvement in the mood of the workers was noted. It was written there, “cases of the manifestation of the influence of anti-Soviet elements, both on workers and peasants, in December become even more rare than in November, despite the fact that in the work of counter-revolutionary parties and groups inspired by the general September-October economic crisis, there is still some revival ... ". The same report also spoke of the fact that the ever-increasing calm in the countryside contributes to the final elimination of banditry even on the outskirts. It was, however, about political banditry. [25] The improvement in the mood of the masses, both in the city and in the countryside, contributed to the creation of a favorable environment for the final work on the creation of the USSR. Although unemployment has increased since 1922, there have also been strikes, in which 200,000 people took part that year. [26]

In general, the measures taken throughout the country to create the USSR testified to one organizing and guiding force, the strength of the Communist Party. Active propaganda was carried out in the mass media and the press played its own special role. On November 14, the Izvestia newspaper began to regularly publish the answers of the leading officials of the national republics to the Izvestia Questionnaire on the USSR. Pravda constantly placed reviews of the local press on the formation of the USSR, reprinted articles from Pravda Georgia, Zarya Vostoka and other local newspapers that covered the process of creating the USSR. [27]

On November 18, 1922, Stalin published an interview in Pravda, where he spoke about the work to prepare the formation of the USSR, focusing on the rapprochement of the republics. According to him, the unification initiative came from the republics, primarily the Transcaucasian ones, as well as Ukraine and Belarus. He called the main motive for the unification movement economic - the need to help peasant farms, the rise of industry, the improvement of means of communication and communications, as well as financial and foreign economic issues. Among other things, Stalin emphasized that the unification movement had already gone through two phases - 1918-1921. and late 1921 - early 1922. and at the moment of the interview, as he emphasized, the third phase begins. When asked about the merger of the republics, Stalin replied with the following remark: “... the abolition of the national republics would be a reactionary absurdity, demanding the abolition of non-Russian nationalities, their Russification, that is, reactionary quixoticism, which provokes objections even from such obscurantists of Russian chauvinism as the Black Hundredist Shulgin. Further, Stalin dwelled on the issue of creating future all-Union bodies and their prerogatives, as well as on the functions of the republican commissariats, and emphasized the international significance of the future Union.[28]

Somewhat later, commenting on this interview, Rakovsky emphasized that he perceived it as the transfer of undivided power to the allied commissariats and the deprivation of individual Central Executive Committees or Councils of People's Commissars of any legislative or administrative initiative. Rakovsky reported on his written proposal, which he made so that the allied commissariats in the field of language use were subject to local laws. Rakovsky recalled Pyatakov's proposal, which he himself supported, that the resolutions of the national congresses contain various options "in order to avoid bureaucratic uniformity." [29]

We have already noticed that there was no uniformity in the various resolutions, but only recently, with the publication of this material by Rakovsky, did we receive documentary confirmation of a special line of conduct at various meetings and congresses in one or another republic. The congresses in the union republics held in December 1922 became an important stage in the preparation of the main event for the creation of a new state - the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR. Three congresses - Ukrainian, Transcaucasian and Belarusian were held almost simultaneously, the All-Russian Congress will be held a little later, and representatives of the indicated union republics will already be present at it.

The VII All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets was held in Kharkov from December 10 to December 14, 1922. 829 delegates were its participants, of which 785 had a decisive vote and 44 had an advisory one. There were only 90 non-party people, the rest, that is, the vast majority, were members of the Communist Party. The national composition of the congress is also of interest. There were 363 Ukrainians, 304 Russians, 130 Jews, 12 Poles and 20 people representing other nationalities. Consequently, only about 44% of the delegates were Ukrainians at the congress. On December 10, Lenin sent a letter to the congress, where, first of all, he dwelled on the question of the unification of the republics. “On the correct solution of this question,” he wrote, “depends on the further organization of our state apparatus, the flagrant shortcomings of which were so convexly and clearly revealed by the last census of Soviet employees, produced in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kharkov. The second question on which, according to Lenin, the congress should devote its special attention is the question of heavy industry.[30]

It is noteworthy that in response to this message from Lenin, the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets on December 11 sent its greetings to Lenin. In this greeting, among other things, it was written: "Following your instructions, the congress will pay special attention to the issues of Soviet construction, agriculture and industry, and in close alliance and unity with other Soviet republics we will work to implement the principles of communism." [31] Interesting phrase, "following your instructions", and the fact that agriculture is placed before the industry. Lenin's telegram did not speak of agriculture and wrote not about industry in general, but about heavy industry. However, Lenin wrote about agriculture and industry more than once before.

The congress was opened by the chairman of the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee, G. I. Petrovsky, who emphasized the attention of the workers and peasants to the improvement of the forms of the Soviet state both below, that is, among the masses of the peasantry, and above, at the session of the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee. According to him, the conviction has matured in the need for a closer rallying of the Soviet republics into a single powerful union. Petrovsky also informed about the receipt of more than 300 telegrams of congratulations addressed to the congress, including from the most remote villages of Ukraine, which made it clear that the peoples of Ukraine were extremely interested in the successful work of the congress. It was Petrovsky who read Lenin's telegram. The congress formed several of its sections, including the section on Soviet construction.

There were 9 issues on the agenda of the congress, each of which, to one degree or another, was related to the formation of the USSR, but, first of all, the 5th, 6th and 9th items, respectively, about the Soviet government; on the union association of the Soviet republics and the election of delegates to the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The most important issue in the formation of the USSR was the 6th question, on which Frunze made a report. Prior to this, Frunze, as deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of Ukraine, made a report of the government, since Rakovsky at that time participated in the Lausanne Conference, [32] from which a congress received a telegram of congratulations from members of the Soviet delegation headed by Chicherin.

Frunze's report on the formation of the USSR is permeated with the idea of rapprochement of the republics, but at the same time, it also speaks of the need for a correct combination of the interests of the center and the union republics and the simultaneous struggle against both great-power chauvinism and bourgeois nationalism. [33] Frunze spoke about the main stages in the development of relations between the Ukrainian SSR and the RSFSR and emphasized that the government, the working class and the peasantry can be proud of the decisions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of October 16, where the foundations for the formation of the USSR were worked out and, thus, they were the initiators of the great cause of unification. By the way, Frunze knew well about national relations in Ukraine and, in particular, dealt with these problems in the army, which he wrote about in his writings. In connection with the transition to the territorial system, he advocated the Ukrainization of a number of Ukrainian military units in order to fight against nationalist chauvinism. [34]

All those who spoke in the debate on the Frunze report welcomed the idea of the formation of the Soviet Union and then unanimously supported the relevant basic documents, which quite eloquently testify to the true aspirations of the participants in the congress, which undoubtedly coincided with the opinion of the majority of the population of the republic.

On December 13, the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets adopted two special documents on questions of the formation of the USSR. The first was called "Declaration of the VII All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets on the formation of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics." This document also cited well-known arguments in favor of creating an alliance, both internal and external. But there were some nuances, first of all, taking into account the lessons of the first stage of the NEP. There was a rapid growth of petty-bourgeois elements and, in this connection, an increase in the danger of nationalist sentiments, both in the form of a revival of great-power Russian tendencies and separatist-chauvinist ones. The position of the Ukrainian government and the resolution of the session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of October 16, 1922 were approved. and contained an appeal to other republics "to immediately begin to formalize the now actually existing union of Soviet republics and to form in this way a single socialist workers' and peasants' front against the front of the world bourgeoisie." Further, the hope was expressed that a united USSR would be built on the principles of mutual equality and would ensure close economic and political ties between the republics and, at the same time, “independence of national and cultural construction and the necessary guarantees for the manifestation of the economic initiative of each of the members of the Union." Hope was also expressed for the creation of a future World Soviet Republic of Labor. [35]

The second document, which was directly related to the problems of the unification of the republics, is called the "Resolution of the VII All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets on the Foundations of the Constitution of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics." It was based on the materials of the Commission on October 6 and the decision of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of December 18, 1922. However, there are some differences in the preamble, since, as in the previous document, emphasizing the need for the closest unity of the policy of the Soviet republics in the field international and economic, again attention was paid to the manifestation of economic independence, as well as the independence of the development of national-cultural construction. There were some other points that were missing in the decisions of the central party organs. So, in one of the notes it was written:[36] But in the previous documents, nothing was said about the state languages in the republics.

The congress also elected a representative Ukrainian delegation of 352 people, which was originally supposed to participate in the work of the X All-Russian Congress of Soviets, and then in the I Congress of Soviets of the USSR, designed to formalize the new state. Already at the closing of the congress, G. I. Petrovsky noted as the most important merit of the congress its decision to unite the Soviet republics into the Union of the SSR.

On December 14, 1922, the 7th All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, finishing its work, sent another greeting to Lenin, which spoke of the initiatives of the congress to create a new state association. Lenin was called there an ideological leader and the hope was expressed to see him in the post of head of the all-Union Soviet government. The idea of a new Union of Soviet Republics as a powerful stronghold of the working people of the whole world and the first step towards the creation of a future world republic of Soviets was again emphasized. [37] Two messages to Lenin from the same congress, of course, were not accidental. The Ukrainian leadership, which prepared these documents, thereby once again confirmed loyalty to Lenin's plan for building the USSR, as opposed to any other plans. It is no coincidence that after receiving Lenin's letter to his congress, even in the first greeting to Lenin dated December 11, it was written about the intention to send a greeting even before Lenin's telegram. The two letters to Lenin, of course, were not just a tribute to an already established procedural tradition.

On the same day as the Ukrainian congress, on December 10, the First Transcaucasian Congress of Soviets opened, which worked in Baku until December 13. The congress was attended by 582 delegates, of which 503 were members of the Communist Party, 2 federalists and 64 non-partisans. The fact that there were only federalists from other parties, except for the communist one, cannot be considered accidental. Still, the federalists, long before the communists, were supporters of Russia as a federation, and to a certain extent they ideologically prepared the congress that was about to begin. According to the national composition, the layout was as follows: 175 Azerbaijanis, 131 Armenians, 160 Georgians, 83 Russians, 12 Jews and 21 representatives of other nationalities. In terms of ethnic composition, this congress was more colorful than the Ukrainian one, and this is understandable. The very presence of different nationalities at the Caucasian congress, when until recently there were sharp conflicts between them,

Fewer questions were raised at this congress than at the Ukrainian one. Here there were seven of them, there, as noted, nine. But, as there, three directly addressed the issues of education of the USSR: the 3rd, 4th and 7th. A report on the external and internal situation of the Soviet Federation was made by S. M. Kirov. Ordzhonikidze made a report on the Union of Soviet Republics. He focused on the economic and political expediency, as well as the vital need for the unification of the Soviet republics into a union state. He paid special attention to the controversy with his Georgian opponents, which testified to the unsettledness of the "Georgian case" and ongoing discussions.

Despite the fact that this congress had more in common with the Ukrainian congress than different, let us pay attention to some more features of this congress. He also sent his greetings to Lenin, in which some oriental features are visible. It contained not only "brotherly fiery southern greetings", but also expressed confidence in the power of the Soviet example for "spreading Soviet influence over the entire awakening East." The greeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR was somewhat shorter and, above all, it emphasized the intention of Transcaucasia to enter the great family of Soviet republics. The resolution on the report on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics turned out to be shorter than at the Ukrainian congress with a corresponding desire to form a union of republics, including the Transcaucasian Federation, which includes Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.[38]

But unlike the Ukrainian Congress, the Transcaucasian Congress does not adopt a resolution on the foundations of the Constitution of the USSR, but the “Constitution (Basic Law) of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic” itself. It was already a large legislative document, reflecting a noticeable additional work in comparison with the materials of well-known party authorities. Based on this Constitution, 150 people and 50 candidates are elected to the Transcaucasian Central Executive Committee, and 75 members and 10 candidates were elected to the Transcaucasian delegation to the First All-Union Congress of Soviets.

The IV All-Belarusian Congress of Soviets was held in Minsk from December 14 to December 18, 1922. It was attended by 250 delegates, including those with a decisive vote -207. The vast majority of them were members of the Communist Party. The national composition of the congress was as follows: Belarusians - 120, Jews - 66, Russians - 39, Poles - 12, Latvians - 5, representatives of other nationalities - 8. The question of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics was the fifth item on the agenda. A report on it was made by A. G. Chervyakov. [39] But this report was preceded by a special appeal of the congress entitled "Appeal of the IV All-Belarusian Congress of Soviets to the fraternal republics." This document was adopted on the very first day of the congress and was imbued with the idea of bringing the Soviet republics closer together. Among other things, it was written there: "The Soviet republics, despite their right to act independently, have never acted as fragmented in the face of world capital." [40]

According to Chervyakov's report, two resolutions were adopted on December 18. The first of them was called "On the Formation of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics" and paid special attention to the international factor and the role of world capitalism, seeking to overthrow Soviet power. Support was expressed for the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets on the immediate formalization of the de facto Union of Soviet Republics on the basis of mutual equality. Actually, these are some of the nuances of the Belarusian resolution, which distinguish it from the resolutions of other congresses. Otherwise, its content is no different from Ukrainian and Transcaucasian. The same approach is seen in the second resolution of the congress concerning the main points of the Constitution of the Union of Republics. Well-known party resolutions were taken not only as a basis, but also in detail,[41]

An analysis of the work of the congresses of the Soviets of the three republics testifies to the far-reaching process of the rapprochement of the republics and to the fact that the main questions of building the future state have already been raised and, to a large extent, tested. The work proceeded according to a predetermined plan, and its next stage was to be the Russian congress, where no serious problems were foreseen. On December 17, 1922, Izvestia publishes an article by M. I. Kalinin “To the 10th Congress of Soviets”, where he wrote about the initiative of the republics to create the USSR and that this initiative would meet with a lively response in the RSFSR. Among other things, Kalinin wrote there that "for obvious reasons, the government of the RSFSR does not officially speak out until the decisive moment until a specific proposal is received from the republics allied with us." [42]

The X All-Russian Congress of Soviets was held in Moscow from December 23 to 27, 1922. It was attended by 2215 delegates, of which 1727 represented the RSFSR and 488 were envoys from the other three republics, which were to become part of the USSR. There were 2092 members and candidates of the Communist Party, 118 non-party members, and 5 people represented other parties. The latter represented anarchist universalists, Georgian federalists, and po-alitionists. The congress was opened by M. I. Kalinin and, at his suggestion, the agenda was approved, which consisted of 7 items. Actually, they all had one or another relation to the formation of the USSR. This was the imprint of the congress itself, a kind of congress of nationalities. Reports were heard on industry (speaker Bogdanov), public education (Lunacharsky), finance (Sokolnikov),[43] But directly the formation of the USSR was devoted to the 6th item on the agenda, which sounded as follows - "The proposal of the treaty Soviet republics to create the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

The question itself was interesting. It turned out that the initiative came from other republics and the Russian congress had to respond to it. A report on this issue was made by Stalin, and he summed up the really great work done to bring the Soviet republics closer together and join them in a union of a new type. The union was presented as voluntary and, in fact, Lenin's idea was reflected here, put forward by him in a well-known letter on September 26, 1922. Stalin's report largely echoes his interview to Pravda on November 18, 1922. He dwelled on three groups of circumstances that determined the inevitability of the unification of the Soviet republics into one union state. The first group concerned economic issues, the second was determined by an external factor, and the third, according to Stalin, was connected with the class nature of Soviet power.[44]

Stalin in his report contrasted the Soviet policy in the field of national relations with the policy of the bourgeois states and showed their fundamental difference. He also dwelled on the form of unification of the republics and the division of powers between the central authorities and the republican bodies. In conclusion, Stalin read out the text of the draft resolution, approved by the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and expressed the hope that the union state being created "will serve as a new decisive step towards the unification of the working people of the whole world into the World Soviet Socialist Republic." [45]

M. V. Frunze spoke on behalf of Ukraine at this congress and announced the unanimous decision of the 7th All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets on the immediate formation of a union of Soviet socialist republics (in his report these words are written with a small letter). Frunze emphasized that, formally, Ukraine is losing only the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs from independent people's commissariats, while everything else remains the same, and focused the delegates' attention not on the form, but on the essence of the issue. He turned to the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations and noted the foundation of these relations in the joint struggle of the peoples against tsarism, which was strengthened and hardened during the Civil War. He also noted the desire of the workers and peasants of Ukraine for an alliance with Russia and briefly dwelled on the history of the Ukrainian Republic as an independent Soviet country. The lessons of the actions of the Ukrainian bourgeois government to eliminate the gains of Soviet power further strengthened the Ukrainian people in rapprochement with Russia, and the time has come not only for the actual strengthening of this alliance, but also for its legal formalization. In Ukraine, as Frunze emphasized, at none of the congresses, from volost and district congresses to the All-Ukrainian one, “not a single voice was heard directed against the idea of creating a union of Soviet republics. On the contrary, everywhere and everywhere it was noted that this question should have been raised long ago, should have been resolved positively long ago, as the best guarantee of the interests of labor ..." As Frunze emphasized, at none of the congresses, from the volost and district congresses to the All-Ukrainian one, “not a single voice was heard directed against the idea of creating a union of Soviet republics. On the contrary, everywhere and everywhere it was noted that this question should have been raised long ago, should have been resolved positively long ago, as the best guarantee of the interests of labor ... "[46]

Frunze's greetings were followed by greetings from other republics joining the Union. Interestingly, not only one representative from the Transcaucasian Federation spoke from Transcaucasia, but one speaker from each Transcaucasian republic. Musabekov represented Azerbaijan, Tskhakaya represented Georgia, and Lukashin represented Armenia. This was followed by a greeting from Belarus, which Chervyakov said. [47]

The congress adopted a special resolution dated December 27, which recognized the timely unification of the republics and proposed to base the unification on the principle of voluntariness and equality of the republics, with each of them retaining the right to freely withdraw. Next, the Russian delegation was asked to develop, together with the delegations of the other three republics, draft declarations and treaties. This decree also provided for some other measures, which, in fact, had already been outlined before by party authorities. The Russian delegation to the unification congress was also chosen. [48] The list of official members of the Russian delegation was as follows: 1) Kalinin, 2) Trotsky, 3) Stalin, 4) Rykov, 5) Kamenev, 6) Tsyurupa, 7) Molotov, 8) Sokolnikov, 9) Sapronov, 10) Pyatakov , 11) Rudzutak, 12) Bogdanov, 13) Yenukidze, 14) Kursky, 15) Khydyraliev, 16) Mendeshev, 17) Korkmasov, 18) Said-Galiev, 19) Mukhtarov, 20) Khalikov, 21) Janson, 22) Mansurov , 23) Rakhimbaev. [49]

During the 10th Congress, some other unifying events were also held. A meeting of the board of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR with the people's commissars of the treaty and autonomous republics is held, at which A. V. Lunacharsky chaired, and V. P. Zatonsky delivered a report. At this meeting, it was decided to strengthen coordination in the field of education, and for this a special commission was created, which met on December 23, 1922 and received approval at a meeting of people's commissariats on December 29. [50] The results of the 10th Congress were widely reflected in the periodical press, as well as in special printed materials intended for the general reader. [51]

On the eve of the First Congress of Soviets of the USSR, there was another event dedicated to its preparation. We are talking about the conference of plenipotentiary delegations of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the TSFSR and the BSSR, which took place on December 29 in the Andreevsky Hall of the Kremlin Palace. The Conference was attended by plenipotentiary delegations of the republics elected at the respective congresses. The presidium of the future congress was determined from four representatives, one from each republic. The presidium included: from the RSFSR - M. Kalinin, from the Ukrainian SSR - G. Petrovsky, from the ZSFSR - M. Tskhakaya and from the BSSR - A. Chervyakov. Kalinin was unanimously elected chairman and Yenukidze secretary.

The conference also considered questions about the declaration and the agreement, the order of the day and the opening date of the congress. The text of the draft declaration and treaty was announced, and this despite the fact that they were considered in advance by individual delegations. An exchange of views took place, and then the conference approved the drafts of these two documents. The place and time of the future congress was approved - the Bolshoi Theater and 11 o'clock in the morning, and the opening of the congress was entrusted to the oldest member of the delegation of the RSFSR P. G. Smidovich, and I. V. Stalin was appointed speaker.

In addition, at this conference they discussed a draft resolution of the Congress of Soviets, which provided for the procedure for implementing the concluded agreement. [52] The procedure for holding the future congress, therefore, was thought out to the smallest detail. It was planned to be held as the largest event of a socio-political nature, not forgetting its inevitable international resonance. Indeed, the events in the Land of the Soviets were followed abroad with great attention, not only in various government circles, but in public circles. Closely watching the changes in their former country and then still quite numerous emigration, actively commenting on plans to create a state of a new type. They had their own hopes for a return, and they did not have a single opinion about what kind of Russia they wanted to be. Different approaches to the future structure of the country, which they considered their own, were torn apart by representatives of various parties and trends. It is noteworthy that such a device,

[1] Lenin V. I. Poly. coll. op. T.43, p. 198.

[2] See: Aghayan Ts. P. Great October and the struggle of the working people of Armenia for the victory of Soviet power. Yerevan, 1962.

[3] Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 321–322; For more details see: Harmandaryan SV. Lenin and the formation of the Transcaucasian Federation. 1921–1923 Yerevan, 1969.

[4] See: Guliyev D. B. oglu. Under the banner of Lenin's national policy. Baku, 1972.

[5] News of the Central Committee of the CPSU. 1989, No. 9, p.216.

[6] Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 325, 498.

[7] Yakubovskaya SI. Decree. cit., p.23.

[8] Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p.318.

[9] Ibid., p. 320.

[10] Struggle for the Consolidation of Soviet Power in Georgia (Collection of Documents and Materials, 1921–1925). Tbilisi, 1959, p. 124–125.

[11] Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 334–335.

[12] On the way to “socialist unitarism”, p. 107.

[13] The Communist Party is the inspirer and organizer of the unifying movement of the Ukrainian people for the formation of the USSR. Collection of documents and materials. Kyiv, 1962, p. 279–280.

[14] Ibid., p.319.

[15] Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 323.

[16] The Communist Party is the inspirer and organizer of the unification movement, p. 323.

[17] Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 324–325, 498.

[18] The Communist Party-Inspirer and Organizer, p. 285–286.

[19] Ibid., p. 287.

[20] Pentkovskaya V. First Congress of Soviets of the USSR. M., 1953, p. 58–59.

[21] Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 328.

[22] Ibid., p. 329.

[23] Multinational Soviet State, p. 155.

[24] Top secret, p.482.

[25] Ibid., p. 484–485, 488.

[26] Bokarev Yu.P. Economic transformations in the USSR in the second half of the 20s-early 30s and global socio-economic development // NEP: the final stage. Correlation between economics and politics. M., 1998, p.33; Sirotkin V. G. Milestones of national history. M., 1991, p.170.

[27] Pentkovskaya V. Decree. cit., p.60.

[28] Stalin I. V. Works. T. 5. M., 1947, p. 138–144.

[29] On the way to “socialist unitarism”, p. 108.

[30] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.45, p. 341–342.

[31] Congresses of Soviets in documents. 1917–1936 T.P. M., 1960, p. 148.

[32] Volkovinskiy V. M., Kulchipskiy SV. Christian Rakovsky, p. 193.

[33] Formation of the USSR. Sat. doc. 1917–1924 M., 1949, p. 69.

[34] Frunze M.V. Selected works. M., 1977, p.111.

[35] Congresses of Soviets ... T. II, p. 151–152.

[36] Ibid., p. 152–155.

[37] Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 360.

[38] Congresses of Soviets, p. 478–482.

[39] Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p.501.

[40] Ibid., p. 360.

[41] Congresses of Soviets ... T. II, p. 304–307.

[42] Op. by: Pentkovskaya V. Decree. cit., p.75.

[43] X Congress of Soviets and I Union Congress of Soviets (Reports and Resolutions). M., 1923, p. 10–85.

[44] Stalin I. V. Works. T.5, p. 149–150.

[45] Ibid., p. 155.

[46] Frunze M.V. Unknown and forgotten. Journalism, memoirs, documents, letters. M., 1991, p. 239–242.

[47] X All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Bulletin No. 6. M., 1923, p. 192–196.

[48] Congresses of Soviets... TIM, 1959, p. 216–217.

[49] X Congress of Soviets and I Union Congress of Soviets, p.92.

[50] Nenarokov A.P. Toward the unity of equals, p. 171–173.

[51] Popov N. N. Results of the X-th All-Russian Congress of Soviets. With the appendix of the resolutions of the congress. M., 1923.

[52] Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p.370.