Are elements of regionalism preserved in modern Siberia? The meaning of Siberian regionalists in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, BSE

“Regionalists” and “statists”: another aspect of the confrontation In the history of the civil war in Russia there is one extremely interesting point, which almost never comes to the attention of researchers and which is directly and directly related to

Siberian regionalists

SIBERIAN REGIONALITY, 1. The system of views of the Sib. intelligentsia on the past, present and future of the region as specific. region (territory) within Russia. state

2. Social-political and cultures. a movement that tried to propagate and implement these views. S. o. underwent a long evolution, developing the concept of territory at different stages of its history. independence of Siberia led by the region. will introduce. organ - Siberian Regional Duma, endowed with a set of powers similar to the competence of the state in the federation. USA system.

As a regionalist belief system. The theory was actively developed by Siberians, prominent scientists, writers and societies. figures G.N. Potanin, N.M. Yadrintsev, S.S. Shashkov, M.V. Zagoskin, IN AND. Vagin, A.V. Adrianov, V.M. Krutovsky, N.N. Kozmin, I.I. Serebrennikov, M.B. Shatilov etc. The formation of their views was greatly influenced by the exiles Decembrists, Petrashevtsy, leaders of the rev. democracy of the 1850s–60s, as well as P.A. Slovtsov And A.P. Shchapov. P.A. Slovtsov laid the tradition for the complex. studying the region, openly opposed the corners. links, giving preference to free people. colonization. A.P. Shchapov, from the standpoint of the zemstvo-regional theory, was the first to formulate the concept of Siberia as a special region, based on federalist ideas that were not based on nationalism. differences, and on the peculiarities of Russian settlement. people, their existence in different natural climates. conditions.

Further development of the worldview of supporters of the movement in con. 1850s - early 1860s is associated with the studies of some young Siberians at universities in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Kazan. Will exclude. The Siberian community played a role in this regard. students in St. Petersburg (1859–63), which united different time OK. 20 people ( N.S. Shchukin, G.N. Potanin, N.M. Yadrintsev, N.I. Naumov, F.N. Usov, S.S. Shashkov, N.M. and E.M. Pavlinovs, I.V. Fedorov, I.A. Khudyakov, N.N. Pesterev, S.S. Popov and others). Original their meetings did not have a clear focus, but a range of issues gradually emerged that attracted general attention and were connected with Siberia, its colonial position within the state, and its future.

The basis of the emerging regionalism. The program was the concept of Siberia as a colony and the interpretation of the process of its development (colonization) as a result of the activities of the people. masses, their max. enterprising and freedom-loving elements. According to the concept, the efforts of the people did not lead to action. development produces. forces of the region, since the government took advantage of their results, turning this region into a penalty. and econ. colony The regionalists saw a way out of this situation in the development of “worldly social enterprise” and freedoms. resettlement, “establishing patronage of Siberian trade and industry,” improving the living conditions of workers. The ideologists of the movement opposed the corners. exile and arbitrariness of the authorities, advocated for the development of education and culture, and were among the first to raise the issue of opening a university.

In 1863, returning from Europe. Russia to Siberia, regionalists deployed to Omsk, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk And Irkutsk active propagandist. activities After the arrest of a number of supporters of the movement and the confiscation of their manuscript in May–June 1865. proclamations to “Siberian Patriots” and “Patriots of Siberia” a special was organized in Omsk. consequence commission on the case “On the discovery of those responsible for the dissemination of anti-government proclamations in Siberia.” A total of 59 people were arrested, and the total number of those involved in the investigation reached 70. But it was not possible to identify the authors, and only Potanin’s “frank confession” served as the basis for accusing the regionalists of separatism and preparing the separation of Siberia from Russia. empires. The investigation ended on Nov. 1865, but only in February. 1868 sentence passed in absentia: G.N. Potanin received 5 years of hard labor. works, most of the rest were subject to deportation to distant places. counties of Arkhangelsk and Vologda provinces.

After the amnesty, from the 2nd half. In the 1870s, regionalists intensified their propaganda efforts. activities in the newspapers they created “Sibir”, “Eastern Review”, “Sibirskaya Gazeta”, publish theor. articles, organize a celebration of the 300th anniversary of the annexation of Siberia to Russia, timing the publication of the foundation. labor N.M. Yadrintsev "Siberia as a Colony". Studying the colonization of the region, they tried to answer the question of the reasons for the serious lag in the development of Siberia in comparison with the European colonies. states (USA, Canada, Australia), the development of which began at approximately the same time and the population of which was dominated by descendants of immigrants from the metropolis. The answer came down to establishing a negative. impact penalty. colonization and arbitrariness of visiting officials.

In economics sphere, the views of the regionalists boiled down to the fact that even the rudiments of market relations did not exist in Siberia. The regionalists were convinced of the possibility of moving to a more just society. I’m building with the help of the community, a handicraft. and artel. production, and subsequently - cooperation. Within the liberal. Populism, they considered it possible to implement their program through reforms (zemstvo, judicial), allowing freedom. resettlement and enlightenment. activities

After the death of N.M. Yadrintsev in 1894, the role of leader and ideologist of the movement passed to G.N. Potanin. Regionalists are finally forming an idea of ​​Siberia as a colony in economics. and watered. aspects. Further elaboration of the question of the specifics of the region leads to the substantiation of the conclusion that a special historical and ethnographic structure has developed here. type of Russians, formed as a result of interaction with the aborigines, the process of colonization and natural climate. conditions. Based on this, the region was allocated to the department. region, autonomy “is a necessary, logical consequence of the constitutional system.”

During revolutions 1905–1907 The regionalists claimed the role of supremacy. education that expressed the interests of the entire population of Siberia. Their ideal of autonomy was embodied in the project of creating the Sib. region Duma This idea was embodied in the “Basic Provisions of the Siberian Regional Union”, adopted at its congress on August 28–29. 1905 in Tomsk. On their basis, a political bloc took shape in the region for a short time (autumn 1905). associations, which included regionalists, Socialist Revolutionaries, liberals, and a united regionalist. slogans.

By Feb. The 1917 movement continued to combine liberals. demands to accelerate the capitalist. development of Siberia by attracting foreigners. capital, discovery Porto Franco at the mouths of the Ob and Yenisei with the neo-populist. illusions about the possibility of alternatives. option to create a “new management system” based on cooperation. S. o. united then a relatively small group of intelligentsia from Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk, Omsk and Irkutsk and was not popular with the main. part of the region's population.

In the period 1917–20, the regionalists occupied the far right flank of the petty bourgeoisie. democracy without representing a homogeneous entity and without creating a single region. associations. Dept. their groups and prominent supporters (G.N. Potanin, A.V. Adrianov, N.N. Kozmin, I.I. Serebrennikov, V.M. Krutovsky, L.I. Shumilovsky, P.V. Vologda, G.B. Patushinsky, M.B. Shatilov, I.A. Yakushev etc.) were closely related to various. watered formations represented in Siberia. S. o. failed to clearly formulate its program, except for putting forward the slogan of autonomy for the region. Massir. repetition of autonomist provisions, implementation of the region. forums in 1917 (conferences and 2 congresses) became possible thanks to the support and participation in them of representatives and organizations of various. parties and groups (Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, People's Socialists, Nationalists, Cooperators, etc.). To the regional Prominent representatives of the capital joined the associations. intellectuals who found themselves in Siberia at that time ( G.K. Gins, N.D. Buyanovsky, I.A. Mikhailov, G.G. Telberg etc.), and Izv. Siberians ( V.N. Pepelyaev, I.A. young, M.P. Golovachev and etc.).

In current 1917 until Nov. 1918 regionalism and its slogans served as the basis for the creation of political systems in Siberia. bloc led by the Socialist Revolutionaries, which launched a struggle against the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, for the overthrow of the Soviets. power, and then headed by the anti-Bolshevik representatives. state education in eastern Russia ( West Siberian Commissariat, Temporary production of autonomous Siberia, Temporary Siberian production).

Graduated fall watered influence, internal disintegration and confusion, transition to the position of right-wing forces and open support for Kolchak. Dictatorships meant disaster for most small-towns. organizations and groupings of the region. The first of them to con. 1918 left the water. regional arenas. Subsequently, their slogan of autonomy in various. modifications (Zemsky Sobor, Siberian Constituent Assembly, Siberian People's Assembly, etc.) the anti-communist was used. associations during mass armaments. performances 1920–22, including on the territory. Far Eastern Republic.

In Oct. 1922 in Vladivostok on the eve of the evacuation of the whites and the occupation of the city by units of the NRA DDA, a group of regionalists ( A.V. Sazonov, IN AND. Moravsky, G.I. Chertkov, M.P. Golovachev and others) proclaimed the creation of the Sib. pr-va, which immediately emigrated to Japan, maintaining the status of a “government in exile” until 1925. In the 1920s–30s. in China and Czechoslovakia, where the leaders of the movement ended up (I.A. Yakushev, E.L. Zubashev, I.I. Serebrennikov, V.I. Moravsky, M.P. Golovachev), attempts were made to revive S. o. as a social-political a movement that has antis. and separatist orientation. Polit. The platform of the regionalists was reflected in the newspapers and magazines they published in Prague and Harbin: “Volnaya Siberia”, “Siberian Archive”, “Siberian Questions” and “Our Newspaper”. Regionalists in emigration launched a wide range of cultural, scientific and educational activities. and publishing activities, awakening interest in the study of the economy and history of Sib. region from a number of the largest Americans. and European scientific centers.

Throughout its history, S. o. it proposed decentralization as an alternative to centralization, which was supposed to mean in practice the participation of regions in the national. internal federal policy beginnings, economics federalism and national-cultures. autonomy.

Lit.: Ablazhey N.N. Siberian regionalism in emigration. Novosibirsk, 2003; Shilovsky M.V. Political processes in Siberia during the period of social cataclysms in 1917–1920. Novosibirsk, 2003; It's him. Siberian regionalism in the socio-political life of the region in the second half of the 19th – first quarter of the 20th century. Novosibirsk, 2008; Yadrintsev N.M. Siberia as a colony in geographical, ethnographic and historical terms. Novosibirsk, 2003.

N.N. Ablazhey, M.V. Shilovsky

Let each region light its own sun, and then our land will be illuminated.
G. N. Potanin.

Regionalism and regionalism: the evolution of the views of Siberian society on the path to the incorporation of Siberia into the all-Russian space

The problem of the relationship between Russia and Siberia (center and region (outskirts, periphery), metropolis and colony in various interpretations) ultimately comes down to the search for an optimal model for coordinating political, socio-economic and cultural-ecological interests within the framework of the emerging federal state. It became a bargaining chip in the struggle of various groups, including regional ones, for power in post-Soviet times. Meanwhile, back in October 1991, a draft constitution of the Russian Federation was promulgated, which proposed, in our opinion, the optimal form of a federal structure, the constituent elements of which were to become national-state (republics) and regional (territorial) entities (1). Soon the project was forgotten, and the federal structure began to be interpreted exclusively from a national perspective. Even in the collective monograph by R.G. Abdulatipova, L.F. Boltenkova, Yu.F. Yarov, who claims to provide a comprehensive analysis of federalism in Russia, deals only with the relationship between the central authorities and various nationalities (2). In turn, federalism for us is as necessary an element of a qualitatively new state of society as democracy and the market. Such a territorially extended state cannot be considered civilized in the conditions of a rigidly unitary structure of power structures.

At the same time, the identified problem can be conditionally divided into a number of large blocks: the place and role of Siberia within the Russian state (outskirts or colony), the formation of the concept of Russian federalism (regionalism) and specific developments in the incorporation of the region into the all-Russian space by local society from the 18th century . and until the establishment of Soviet power here (1920).

As for the first block, until 1917 the government pursued a policy of “state feudalism” in relation to Siberia, the components of which were:

Firstly, a monopoly on the land and natural resources of the region, the exploitation of which was considered the exclusive right of the state or the Cabinet of His Imperial Majesty. Siberia practically did not know private ownership of land.

Secondly, predominantly “penal” colonization and restrictions on free people’s colonization until the beginning of the 20th century.

Thirdly, the agrarian and raw material nature of the development of the economy, which is poorly included in market relations. The unequal nature of the exchange of goods. According to data for 1884, the trade turnover of the largest Irbit fair for the region looked as follows. Sold European goods, mainly manufactured goods for 41,932 thousand rubles, Siberian goods (furs, leather, lard, fat, bristles, honey, wax, oil, pine nuts, etc.) for 11,836 thousand rubles and transit Chinese tea for another 7553 thousand rubles. “Thus,” the observer concludes, “the entire country that produces raw materials is constantly in debt” (3). And even at the beginning of the twentieth century. Tsarism's measures did not go further than increasing the profitability of agriculture and the simplest processing of raw materials, the export of which was artificially restrained by the Chelyabinsk tariff crisis until 1911.

Fourthly, the weak development of market relations gave rise to the specific position of the local bourgeoisie, comprador in nature, who made capital through monopoly and bondage caused by the arbitrariness of the local administration and unequal exchange (“the Siberian merchant is the agent of the manufacturer” (4).

Fifthly, the arbitrariness of administrative structures formed by immigrants from European Russia, not related to the interests of the population and viewing the “Siberian service” as a way of personal enrichment. “The history of the Siberian administration,” noted S.S. Shashkov, is a long story about the suffering of the region. Siberia did not know serfdom, but it knew administrative lawlessness” (5).

Sixth, the weak development of education, science and culture, causing a massive outflow of young people to universities in the European part of the country and inhibiting the formation of local intelligentsia.

These circumstances were complemented by the inequality of the region's population in terms of civil rights compared to residents of the central provinces. Judicial reform spread to Siberia in 1897, and zemstvo institutions remained the subject of dreams of Siberians until 1917. Summarizing all this, in one of the publications, we concluded “about the special status of Siberian territories within the Russian state until 1917, close in position to a colony, primarily economic”(6). Analyzing the economic situation in Siberia already in the twentieth century. two prominent specialists V.V. Kuleshov and V.A. Kryukov came to the following: “Already at the very initial stage of the formation of the foundations of a multi-structure economy built on market principles, the economy of Siberia (both Western and Eastern) faced problems that turned out to be “eternal” for it. Among these problems:

– unequal exchange in relations with the metropolis; – discriminatory nature of prices and tariffs in relation to Siberian producers; – fiscal – not focused on creating conditions for economic growth – financial and economic policy of the metropolis” (7).

The colossal size and multinational nature of the Russian Empire determined, on the one hand, the formation of the concept of domestic federalism (regionalism), and, on the other, gave impetus to attempts to implement it. The first local governor, Prince M.P., is considered the founder of Siberian separatism. Gagarin, hanged in 1721 by order of Peter I “as a bribe-taker and ruiner of the people.” What, let us note in passing, is the actual formulation. But the historian M. Pylyaev rightly noted that “at that time Menshikov, Bruce and Apraksin also stole, but they were not hanged.” In fact, “the tsar heard rumors about Gagarin’s intention to become a ruler independent of Russia in Siberia.” The bogeyman of separatism remained a headache for the St. Petersburg authorities for a long time. In particular, in 1831, Archbishop of Irkutsk Iriney Nesterovich, from the words of official Voinov, reported that the chairman of the local provincial government, the exiled Decembrist A.N. Muravyov “wants to be a Siberian prince” (8).

Rumors remained rumors, but in 1863 S.S. Popov, S.S. Shashkov and N.M. Yadrintsev, in handwritten proclamations to “Siberian Patriots” and “Patriots of Siberia,” called on Siberians to rebel in order to form a “republic of the Siberian United States,” for which they paid with deportation to the Vologda and Arkhangelsk provinces (9). This marked the beginning of Siberian regionalism. Nevertheless, both the authorities and the supporters of the movement themselves denied even the potential prospect of the development of separatist sentiments in the region. In response to V. Annenkov’s denunciation about a conspiracy allegedly being prepared in Eastern Siberia with the aim of separating Siberia from the Russian Empire, gendarme colonel V.P. Rykachev explained to higher “authorities” in 1869: “In Siberia there are 4 million inhabitants who occupy an area of ​​about 260 thousand square miles. What kind of conspiracy should there be, how strong should the person at its head be and what means should he have to incite these 4 million to separatism?” (10).

In turn, in 1862, the ideologist of regionalism G.N. Potanin outlined the “credo” of the movement as follows: “We want to live and develop independently, have our own morals and laws, read and write what we want, and not what they order from Russia, raise children as we wish, collect taxes and spend in our own way.” them only for themselves.” But at the same time he explained: “Regionalism includes separatism not only in the field of culture, but also in the field of politics, with the exception of only the most extreme act (attack on the integrity of the state), which in ordinary common language is called political separatism; the latter is unacceptable from a state point of view; but regionalist separatism does not threaten the integrity of the state, although it can go very, very far” (11).

The Decembrists were the first to raise the question of decentralization of territorial management. P.I. Pestel has priority in defining the term “federalism” in relation to domestic practice. “Federal states are those states,” he noted, “in which the regions that compose them, although they recognize a common supreme power over themselves and are obliged to act jointly in all external relations, but at the same time retain their right to make laws and issue regulations for their own their internal civil and political formation and arrange their government at their own discretion” (12). As we can see, the national aspect is missing in the definition. A specific version of a federal structure based on the principles outlined above is contained in the constitutional draft of N.M. Muravyov, who proposed dividing Russia into 13 powers, including Obi and Lena in Siberia, headed by the Chambers of Elections and State Dumas.

A new stage in the development of the Russian model of federalism (regionalism) is associated with the names of N.I. Kostomarov and A.P. Shchapov, who formulated the zemstvo-regional concept of the history of Russia. The basis of the views of the first was the idea that all the peoples of the country have “federal principles” that provide the basis for the creation of a federation. The essence of federalism A.P. Shchapov showed not the national aspect, but the local (regional) characteristics of the Great Russian people, which developed in the process of colonization of new territories under the influence of natural, climatic, economic and ethnographic conditions. Thus, N.I. Kostomarov and A.P. Shchapov in the 50-60s. Х1Х century formulated two opposing approaches to the problem of the federal structure of Russia - according to national and territorial (regional) principles.

In general, at the beginning of the twentieth century. A double interpretation of the term “federalism” is becoming generally accepted, but its definition as a territorial (regional) phenomenon has become the most common. This approach was concretely embodied in the program provisions of the main Russian political parties (the Cadets, the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Social Democrats, including the Bolsheviks). Leading experts and politicians were firmly convinced that no federation could resolve the national question. Prominent government expert A.S. Yashchenko in his basic research argued that it is impossible to create a federation in Russia on a national basis (13). The leading expert of the Cadet Party on the national question, F.F., comes to the same conclusion. Kokoshkin. “I believe,” he said, “that the construction Russian Federation based on national division, the task of state building is practically impossible” (14).

In this situation in Siberia, the regional movement took shape as a system of views of part of the local intelligentsia (G.N. Potanin, N.M. Yadrintsev, S.S. Shashkov, V.I. Vagin, A.V. Adrianov, Vl. M. Krutovsky , I.I. Serebrennikov, P.V. Vologodsky, N.N. Kozmin, etc.) on the past, present and future of the region as a specific area. It went through a long evolution, developing the concept of territorial independence of Siberia, headed by a regional (regional) representative body - the regional Duma, endowed with a set of powers similar to the competence of the state in the US federal system.

Considering Siberia as a colony, supporters of the movement put forward a program to overcome this situation by stimulating free migration, eliminating exile, “establishing patronage of Siberian trade and industry,” direct entry of Siberian goods into the world market by introducing a free port at the mouths of the Ob and Yenisei, and organizing shipping along the Northern Sea Route and attracting foreign investment.

Regionalists have priority in development theoretical foundations domestic regional studies. They identified Siberia as a separate region (region) based on following criteria: the specifics of natural and climatic conditions, the formation here of a special historical and ethnographic type of Russian (old-timer) population and the geopolitical position of the region. Summarizing them, A. Sibiryakov wrote in 1906: “Although Siberia does not at all fit into the category of such outskirts as Poland, or even Little Russia, where there are special types of Slavic people, and none of the Russian inhabitants, as well as the Siberians themselves, will classify Siberians as some nationality other than Russian, but, nevertheless, special conditions Siberia has now become so specialized in geographic, ethnographic and even social terms that, adding to them the external relations of Siberia to its immediate neighbors, such as China and Japan, i.e. the position they occupy in relation to Siberia at the moment, raising the question of the autonomy of Siberia now seems more than opportune” (15).

Over time, the economic factor was added to these criteria. “A vast empire cannot help but be divided into separate regions,” stated G.N. in 1907. Potanin, - even if the connection between them continued to remain, this division should not be established on ethnographic features... To control the expenditure of local finances, a local legislative body, a regional duma, should be created. Then entrepreneurs will not travel a thousand miles from their regions and live away from them to carry out their economic projects in the central offices, holders of monetary funds will remain in the region, close to the institutions in charge of the regional economy, the wealth collected from the regional territory will accumulate in region”(16).

During the revolution of 1905-1907. at an illegal congress in Tomsk on August 28-29, 1905 (17), the “Basic Provisions of the Siberian Regional Union” were adopted, which emphasized: “Constituting an indivisible part of Russia, participating on an equal basis with other parts of Russia in the general system of public administration on the basis of popular representation, Siberia, both in terms of its historical, geographical, ethnographic and socio-economic conditions, and in terms of purely local commercial, industrial and agricultural interests, is a separate region. Based on the position that each region should have the right to self-government, we declare that Siberia, due to the specified conditions and interests, needs the organization of regional self-government in the form of the Siberian Regional Duma, which independently resolves all local needs and economic, socio-economic, educational." It was proposed to transfer to the authority of the Duma: “a). local budget law; b). public education; V). public safety; G). local routes and tariffs; d). public health; e). disposal and ownership of all lands of the region that form part of the state fund with forests, waters and subsoil; and). determination of land use procedures in connection with the resettlement issue; h). foreign question”(18).

These ideas were shared by local organizations of the main political parties and non-party public formations such as the Irkutsk Trade and Industrial Union (19). The differences between supporters of Siberian federalism at the time under review were along the lines of ideas about the region as a single whole or a system of self-governing territories. Thus, the Irkutsk regionalists, consolidated with liberals from the local “Union of Unions,” created a special commission to prepare a draft regulation on the introduction of zemstvos in Siberia. On her instructions, it was finalized by the editor of the newspaper “Eastern Review” I.I. Popov. Unlike the Tomsk one, it provided for the organization of separate regional dumas for each part of the region (Eastern and Western). Moreover, the Irkutsk regionalists allowed in the foreseeable future the creation of several dozen autonomous regions in the “vast spaces of Siberia and Turkestan” (20). All this taken together allowed the Chairman of the Council of Ministers S.Yu. Witte stated in 1906: “The autonomy of the outlying areas no longer constitutes the ultimate ideal of the federalists; they started talking about provincial autonomy, that is, about transforming Russia into a union of free, self-determining federations (like America)” (21).

After February 1917, the attitude of the main political parties to the federal structure of Russia changed significantly. The Social Revolutionaries remained his consistent supporters. As explained in a popular brochure on this subject, published by the AKP publishing house, “if several cities and provinces have entered into such an agreement among themselves to conduct common affairs, then individual zemstvo and city assemblies send their representatives elected to these Duma and city meetings, and these representatives constitute special regional councils for the conduct of common affairs and enterprises.” This was considered possible “for the Volga region, Belarus, the South-Western region, Siberia” (22). The logical conclusion of this trend was the adoption by the All-Russian Constituent Assembly, where the Socialist Revolutionaries prevailed, of its latest resolution on the state structure of Russia, which consisted of one sentence: “The Russian State is proclaimed as the Russian Democratic Federative Republic, uniting peoples and regions in an inextricable union, within the limits established by the federal constitution, sovereign”(23).

In Siberia, during 1917, under regionalist slogans, there was a unification of organizations and groups, including the Socialist Revolutionaries, People's Socialists, regionalists themselves, Mensheviks, and nationalists, who, through the city dumas, zemstvo councils, councils of peasant deputies and cooperation they controlled, tried to achieve the autonomous status of the region.

The theoretical basis of the block was the conceptual provisions of the theorists of regionalism, modernized in relation to the current situation. Yes, in the resolution general meeting representatives of the cooperative association “CentroSiberia” (August 1917) emphasized that “drowning in the riches of Siberian nature, the population, even in peacetime, needed every nail, lump of sugar, arshin of cloth or calico... The riches of Siberia are taken abroad almost for nothing, and processed there and are sold to Siberia in the form of factory products at high prices” (24). The way out of this situation is the leader of the Irkutsk regional workers I.I. Serebrennikov saw the establishment of the Siberian Regional Duma, “common for all of Siberia, with the corresponding executive bodies and with the allocation of Siberian finances from state finances, with the granting of this Regional Duma the right to manage the entire economy of the colony” (25).

A characteristic feature of the political processes of 1917 in eastern Russia was the escalation of the national movement. Already in March, at numerous rallies and meetings of representatives of national minorities, in general terms, wishes were formulated for a fair resolution of the national question, not going further than “full autonomy for all peoples of the former empire and the introduction of a native language in schools, meetings and institutions of each people” (26). At the same time, the creation of national organizations of political parties and national movements begins. Previously, extraterritorial (dispersed in a foreign language environment) minorities of Western origin (Jews, Germans, Balts, Poles, Ukrainians) showed activity. They were followed by Muslim (Tatar) bureaus in Tyumen, Omsk, Novonikolaevsk, Tomsk. On March 6, the first private meeting of a group of Buryat intelligentsia took place in Chita, which established an organizing committee consisting of Sh.B. Badmaeva, Sh.B. Bazarova, M.N. Bogdanova, N.N. Namdakova, E.-D. Rinchino and S.S. Sampilova.

Subsequently, extraterritorialists consistently spoke out for the transformation of Russia into a federal democratic republic with the provision of cultural and national autonomy to ethnic groups that do not have a common territory (27). As for the indigenous ethnic groups, their national organizations went further. Thus, already in April, the Buryat Provisional Organizing Committee begins to put forward and substantiate a project of national autonomy according to the somon-khoshun-aimak-Burnatsduma scheme. The Altaians went even further, and in the summer of 1917 they achieved autonomous status. Based on the decision of the session of the Tomsk Provincial People's Assembly, on July 1-6, a congress of foreign volosts of the Altai Mountains was held in Biysk “with the functions of a subdistrict Constituent Assembly,” which elected the Altai Mining Duma headed by G.I. Gurkin. In the Kuznetsk district, at the congress of the Shors on July 28-30, a special department of the Duma was created.

A cross-section of opinions regarding the problem of relations between Siberia and Russia of various groups was given by the First Siberian Regional Congress, which opened in Tomsk on October 8, 1917, at which it was supposed to adopt one of the projects of the national-state structure of Russia, with its subsequent approval in the All-Russian Constituent Assembly (28). The forum was attended by 182 delegates, including 18 Tatars, 13 Ukrainians, 10 Kazakhs, 5 Germans and Jews each, 4 Poles, 3 Yakuts, 2 Altaians, one Belarusian and one Buryat. In total, nationals made up 34% of the delegates and represented 30 national associations, including 9 Tatar national councils, 5 Ukrainian national communities, two German committees, Alash Orda, the Altai Mining Duma, the Yakut Labor Union of Federalists, two Zionist organizations and etc.

Four days (October 9-12) were spent listening to two “extensive” reports from the Socialist Revolutionaries M.B. Shatilov “Siberia as an integral part of the Russian Federative Republic” and E.V. Zakharov “Regional structure of Siberia”. Judging by the latter’s theses, he spoke out for the decentralization of territorial management, one of which included Siberia. At the same time, the priority problem of the internal life of the region was considered to be “resolution of land issues in connection with the socialization of the land and the organization of life of foreigners.” The speaker defended a federal structure Russian Republic and the organization of a representative body in the region - the Siberian Regional Duma, endowed with a set of powers provided for by the “Basic Provisions of the Siberian Regional Union” adopted in 1905. In addition, it was proposed to include “local work and needs” in the competence of the Duma, as well as “all matters of a local or private nature of the province” (29).

During the debate, it became clear that there was no unity of views among the delegates on the issue of autonomy for Siberia, even within individual factions. The Cadets spoke decisively for “one and indivisible”. Representative of their Tomsk organization I.A. Nekrasov stated: “We had a great and united Russia, and the nationalities that were part of Russia, they were with us and will die with us.” Supporting him, the delegate from the Siberian Cossack Army, Colonel E.P. Berezovsky warned the nationals: “But they must remember that if they decide to break away from the Russian state, they face death. Only the Russian people, the most tolerant of all nationalities, will be able to give them the opportunity to develop and demonstrate all the gifts that are invested in them,” and concluding his speech, he threatened: “I would ask you not to forget that the Siberian Cossacks are quite organized, strong enough , and therefore it can be in a friendly family, when we strive not to destroy state unity” (30).

The Kadet deputies were supported by some of the Mensheviks, however, expressing the opposite argument. According to K.G. Brontman, bourgeois opponents are led by “a very faithful, although blind in in this case class instinct... There is no doubt that in Siberia big capital, if it existed, would be against an expanded interpretation of autonomy.” Rejecting it, he stated that regionalism had outlived its usefulness, and from the standpoint of social democracy, the development of the class struggle requires “the unconditional unity of Siberia and Russia, as complete as possible in economic terms.” He was objected to by his party colleague, delegate from the Irkutsk city government N.A. Alekseev: “I, as a Social Democrat, see absolutely nothing in this program of regional self-government that would be in irreconcilable contradiction with the interests of the working class, and I must declare, and, I think, not only on my own behalf, but also on behalf of many social -democrats, that we, Social Democrats, will fully support the desire for regional self-government of Siberia on the widest scale” (31).

Supporters of autonomy, in turn, split into autonomists and federalists. In addition, they were divided into those who recognized Siberia as a single region and those who advocated its division into several regions. Representatives of national associations put forward their demands, formulated by S.A. Novgorodov: “When we cope with the first task of history - with the introduction of broad democratic self-government, after that we will move on to the next exam, to the introduction of legislative diets” (32). All this confusion allowed E.P. Berezovsky to note: “From all these debates I came away with the conviction that even the Siberian intelligentsia did not clearly understand what federation and autonomy are” (33). Objecting to him, at the meeting on October 15, A.N. Bukeikhanov emphasized: “I look at our debates as the debates of the peoples of Siberia in general, and this is not a party matter, and we must try to gather all talented Siberians around this matter” (34).

On October 16, 1917, delegates to the regional congress adopted the resolution “Regional structure of Siberia,” which represents a set of normative proposals defining the status of Siberia within the Russian state, the basic principles of the functioning of the autonomy, the structure of its governing bodies, their competence and formation procedure.

Recognizing the unity of the Russian Republic, the document demanded “national or territorial autonomy” for its parts. At the same time, “the rights of national minorities in areas with a mixed population and the rights of nations without territory must be ensured by law, through the formation of extraterritorial personal autonomous unions.” Siberia has all the rights to autonomy, and within the powers determined by the “central parliament,” all power in the region should belong to the Siberian Regional Duma, “elected on the basis of universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage in compliance with the principles of proportional representation.”

As an autonomous unit, Siberia “has the right to transfer part of its legislative powers to individual regions and nationalities occupying a separate territory, if the latter require it, thus turning into a federation, i.e., a union of regions and nationalities.” The delegates did not forget about the sensitive issue of the borders of Siberia in the west, defining them “according to the watershed east of the Urals, including the entire Kyrgyz region, with the free expression of the will of the population occupying these borders.”

The following were subject to the jurisdiction of the Siberian Regional Duma: “1). local budget law; 2). public education; 3). public safety; 4). public health; 5). local communications, post and telegraph; 6). the right to establish tariffs and duties; 7). disposal of the people's property - land, mineral resources and waters, on the basis that will be established by the Constituent Assembly; 8). the matter of resettlement and resettlement; 9). changing the constitution of Siberia, with the exception of what concerns the expansion of the competence of the Siberian Regional Duma at the expense of the central parliament; 10). local jobs and businesses; eleven). social legislation and development of general republican laws; 12). in general, all matters of a local nature.”

It was supposed “to ensure legality in the area internal management“to create an independent administrative (supreme) court, “separated from the criminal and civil courts, organized on a consistent basis in all instances of the elective principle and having a cassation instance - a mixed board consisting of lawyers and persons with experience in management matters” (35).

In assessing the document, it should first of all be noted that it was a logical continuation of the “Basic Provisions of the Siberian Regional Union” of 1905. From a state-legal point of view, it seems to us that it created the optimal form of the federal structure of Russia with a clearly developed system of organizing management at the level region (region), division of functions of central and local authorities, in which the principle of division of power into legislative (Duma), executive (Cabinet of Ministers) and judicial (administrative court) was carried out. The normative act combined both approaches to federalism: national and territorial. In addition, he guaranteed national minorities the preservation of ethnic identity in areas of mixed residence and extraterritorial areas. Finally, the document laid down the possibility of further improving national-state structures within the region through their gradual transformation “into a union of regions and nationalities.” From this point of view, it has not lost its relevance in our time.

The overthrow of Soviet power in the summer of 1918 in eastern Russia initially led to the intensification of national movements. Significant hopes were placed on the Provisional Siberian Government headed by P.V. Vologda, among whose departments there was the Ministry of Native Affairs headed by M.B. Shatilov. The main program provisions of the “democratic” counter-revolution in the national sphere were reflected in the “Act on the Formation of the All-Russian Supreme Power”, adopted at the Ufa State Conference on September 23, 1918. It was signed by representatives of Bashkiria, Alash-Orda, Autonomous Turkestan, the Provisional Estonian Government, and the national administration Turkic-Tatars of inner Russia and Siberia. The document, on the one hand, provided for the “reunification of the separated, fallen away and scattered regions of Russia,” and on the other, the provision of territorial and national autonomy to individual regions, as well as the recognition of the right of extraterritorial ethnic groups to cultural and national self-determination on the basis of laws adopted by the “sovereign Constituent The meeting”(36).

However, the Ministry of Native Affairs did nothing in terms of practical solutions to national problems. The faction of nationalities of the Siberian Regional Duma, which prepared a draft regulation on the ministry, had certain developments. Aboriginal ethnic groups living north of 60 degrees north latitude and also having a “sparse and uncultured population” came under his jurisdiction. Their habitats were to be divided into districts under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Native Affairs. A commissioner of the department was appointed to each of them, under which a district native council operated. To finance the districts, it was planned to form a Siberian Native Fund, replenished from taxes collected from the aborigines and fixed deductions from income received from exploitation natural resources native districts (37).

The situation in the national sphere changed significantly after the coup d'etat on November 18, 1918. A.V. Kolchak and his government declared their proposals extremely sparingly and vaguely, adhering to the fundamental principle of “one and indivisible” Russia. As I.V. rightly noted. To us: “The Kolchak government perceived the claims of national minorities as a limitation of sovereign sovereignty. Kolchak's ideologists argued for the non-recognition of cultural-national autonomy by the fact that the rights of national minorities are ensured by the recognition of their civil rights. Thus, national minorities were denied the right to exist as a collective (national union). And therefore, self-government of national minorities was not welcomed by the Kolchak government” (38).

In addition, the authorities consistently opposed the intentions of individual aboriginal ethnic groups to establish territorial autonomy. Therefore, among their national elites, the desire to gain autonomy or independence is being revived through the creation of statehood on a theocratic basis or through unification with neighboring peoples who are similar in language and culture. Thus, the sheretui of the Kudinsky datsan in Transbaikalia, S. Tsydenov, in April 1919 declared himself the king of the Buryat theocratic state, whose power was recognized by the population of five khoshuns. On May 11, the tsar and his ministers were arrested by the police (39). In general, in 1919, among the Buryat intelligentsia, a desire was formed to unite the Mongols into a single state under the auspices of Ataman G.M. Semenov and Japan. For the practical implementation of the plan, at the end of February a congress of pan-Mongolists opens in Chita, which decided to form an independent federal “Great Mongolian State” with the inclusion of Inner and Outer Mongolia, Barga and the Buryat lands. However, the new state formation did not receive support even from Japan, which feared complications in the international arena (40).

As for the regionalists, during the Kolchak period, some of them, represented by I.A. Molodykh, M.P. Golovacheva, N.Ya. Novombergsky, A.D. Bazhenova, N.N. Kozmina and others outlined their vision of the problem of the incorporation of Siberia into Russia in the “Declaration of Siberian Regionalists,” promulgated in early July 1919. They recognized that “a transitional form of Russian power until the final victory over the Bolsheviks and until the creation of the National Constituent Assembly, in in the interests of gathering the disparate parts of Russia, the Supreme State Power, exercised by the Supreme Government, must remain possessing full power.” At the same time, it was considered timely to raise before it the question of creating a Siberian regional administration with a “legislative body on local issues.” Finally, supporters of the movement listed local issues that should be resolved in the near future. They demanded “the establishment and protection of the land rights of old-time peasants, Cossacks and foreigners, as well as the economic structure of former settlers” (41).

In the summer of 1919, a commission was created under the chairmanship of A.S. Beletsky-Belorusov to prepare regulations on elections to the promised A.V. Kolchak after the victory over the Bolsheviks, the National Assembly. The last of the attempts we have identified to raise the question of the autonomy of Siberia is connected with her activities. N.N. is appointed deputy chairman of the commission. Kozmin, who was tasked with working on the issue of a Siberian regional representative body. The essence of his proposals boiled down to the establishment of the Siberian Regional Duma and the Siberian Regional Council. In parallel with them, executive power was to belong to the governor-general as a representative of the central government and commander of the troops. The Duma was supposed to be elected for four years by persons born in Siberia or who had lived in it for at least five years. The regional council was to be elected from representatives from provincial zemstvos, Cossack troops, and indigenous peoples with national organizations. A third of its members were appointed by the Governor-General (42).

While in exile after the end of the civil war, prominent supporters of regionalism M.P. Golovachev, P.V. Vologodsky, I.A. Yakushev, I.I. Serebrennikov, I.K. Okulich and others continued to develop the concept of territorial independence of Siberia, taking into account the experience of Soviet construction. Moreover, separatism was rejected in all developments. “We, Siberians,” emphasized I.K. Okulich, “they have repeatedly pointed out that we are not thinking about any separation from Russia, we consider ourselves Russian people, we do not sympathize with independence, but we definitely want to be masters in our homeland in Siberia.” A characteristic feature of all projects was approximately the same list of powers of regional self-government bodies, coinciding with those proposed by the regionalists back in 1905. Only the approaches to the organization of all-Siberian government bodies were different in them.

For example, I.K. Okulich as a basis standalone device Siberia offered to take federal system USA, in which legislative functions would belong to a small parliament (no more than 100 people). Executive power must be exercised by a popularly elected president and a Council of Ministers responsible to him. Local self-government at the level of the volost-province is implemented by zemstvo bodies. In contrast to him, I.A. Yakushev and I.I. Serebrennikov put forward a model of a parliamentary republic headed by the Siberian Regional Duma and the Cabinet of Ministers responsible to it. Independent judiciary should be headed at the regional level by the special presence of the government senate (43).

Actually, this is where we can complete the review of attempts to develop an optimal model of relations between Siberia and Russia in the pre-Soviet period.

Notes

1. Russian newspaper. 1991. 11 Oct.
2. Abdulatipov R. G., Boltenkova L. F., Yarov Yu. F. Federalism in the history of Russia. M., 1992. Book. 1.
3. East review (Irkutsk). 1885. March 14.
4. Yadrintsev N.M. Needs and living conditions of the working population of Siberia (investigation about Siberian bondage, monopoly and world-eating) // Otech. notes. 1876. No. 12. P. 245.
5. Shashkov S.S. Essays on Siberia in historical and economic terms // Library for reading. 1862. T. 174. No. 12. P. 54-55.
6. Shilovsky M.V. On the issue of the colonial position of Siberia as part of the Russian state // European studies in Siberia. Tomsk, 2001. Issue. 3. P. 15.
7. Kuleshov V.V., Kryukov V.A. Economic development Siberia in the twentieth century (discussion materials). Novosibirsk, 2000. P. 6.
8. Irinei Nesterovich... // Russian antiquity. 1882. No. 9. P. 574.
9. GARF. F. 109. Op. 1865. D. 196. L. 22; Shilovsky M.V. Siberian regionalists in the socio-political movement in the late 50s - 60s of the 19th century. Novosibirsk, 1989; It's him. The Case of the Siberian Regionalists of 1865 // Izv. Omsk State local historian museum. 1998. No. 6. P. 229-246.
10. GARF. F. 109. Op. 1868. D. 8. Part 10. L. 46.
11. Letters from G. N. Potanin. Irkutsk, 1987. T. 1. P. 59; It's him. Memoirs // Literary heritage of Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1983. T. 6. P. 210.
12. Decembrist revolt. Documentation. M., 1958. T. 7. P. 126.
13. Yashchenko A. S. Theory of federalism. Yuryev, 1912. P. 392.
14. Kokoshkin F. F. Autonomy and federation. Pg., 1917. P. 14.
15. Sibiryakov A. On the issue of autonomy of Siberia // Sibirsk. life (Tomsk). 1906. 19 Jan.
16. Potanin G.N. The future of the Siberian regional trend // Sibirsk. life. 1907. July 6.
17. See: Shilovsky M.V. Congress of the Siberian Regional Union (August 1905) // Socio-demographic problems of the history of Siberia in the 17th - 20th centuries. Novosibirsk, 1996. pp. 45-52.
18. Right. 1905. 1 Oct. pp. 3253-3254.
19. TsDNIO. F. 300. Op. 1. D. 158. L. 1; Weisman R. L. Legal inquiries of Siberia. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 12.
20. Popov I.I. Draft regulations on zemstvo institutions in Siberia. Irkutsk, 1905; It's him. Self-government and zemstvo institutions (regarding the introduction of zemstvos in Siberia). M., 1905; East review. 1905. 2 Sep.
21. Witte S. Yu. Crossroads (Note to Nicholas II) // New Times. 1994. No. 32. P. 44.
22. Kabanov N. Regional democracy. M., 1917. S. 3, 4.
23. Constituent Assembly. Verbatim report. Pg., 1918. P. 90.
24. GAOO. F. 151. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 8.
25. Serebrennikov I. I. G. N. Potanin and regionalism // Izv. Irkutsk Department of the Society for the Study of Siberia and Improvement of Its Life. Irkutsk, 1917. T. 1. P. 129-130.
26. Victory of the Great October Revolution in Siberia. Tomsk, 1987. Part 1. P. 248.
27. Nam I.V. Congresses of national minorities of Siberia (1917 - early 1918) // October and the civil war in Siberia. Story. Historiography. Source study. Tomsk, 1993. pp. 86-89.
28. For more details, see: Shilovsky M.V. First Siberian Regional Congress (October 1917) // Questions of the history of Siberia of the twentieth century. Novosibirsk, 1998. pp. 42-57.
29. GANO. F. item 5. Op. 4. D. 659. L. 1, 3.
30. GATO. F. r-552. Op. 1. D. 7. L. 16; d. 8. L. 4, 6.
31. Right there. D. 6. L. 53, 60, 66-67.
32. Right there. L. 79.
33. Right there. D. 8. L. 5.
34. Right there. D. 10. L. 56.
35. GANO. F. item 5. Op. 4. D. 645. L. 9-12.
36. History of “white” Siberia. Theses scientific. conf. Kemerovo, 1995. pp. 166-167.
37. Altai beam (Barnaul). 1918. 7 Aug.
38. Nam I.V. Self-organization of national minorities of Siberia in the conditions of revolution and civil war // History of “white” Siberia. P. 103.
39. Vasilievsky V.I. Transbaikal white statehood. Chita, 2000. P. 93.
40. Rinchino E.-D. Great powers and independence of Mongolia (1919) // Rinchino E.-D. Documentation. Articles. Letters. Ulan-Ude, 1994. pp. 112-120; Kuras L.V., Bazarov B.V. At the origins of Buryat statehood // Siberia: XX century. Kemerovo, 1999. Vol. 2. P. 15.
41. GANO. F. P. 5. Op. 4. D. 648. L. 2, 3.
42. Free Siberia (Krasnoyarsk). 1919. 30 Sep.
43. Shilovsky M.V. Socio-political movement in Siberia in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Regionalists. Novosibirsk, 1995. pp. 120-121.

Shilovsky M.V.,
d. ist. Sc., prof. NSU

The article was first published:
Shilovsky, M.V. Regionalism and regionalism: the evolution of the views of Siberian society on the path of incorporation of Siberia into the all-Russian space // Administrative, state and legal development of Siberia in the 17th-20th centuries. – Irkutsk, 2003.

SIBERIAN REGIONALS

regionalists, representatives of the socio-political movement among the Siberian bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia (mid-50s of the 19th century - early 20th century). Regionalism originated in the St. Petersburg circle of Siberian students (G. N. Potanin, N. M. Yadrintsev, S. S. Shashkov, N. I. Naumov, F. N. Usov, etc.). In the 60s S. o. advocated a revolutionary struggle against the autocracy and for democratic freedoms. Upon returning to Siberia (1863) they intensified their activities. They spoke out in defense of “foreigners” and against colonial oppression. Acting in contact with political exiles Russians and Poles, S. o. were preparing an uprising. Considering Siberia as a political and economic colony of Russia, and Siberians as a new Siberian “nation,” individual S. o. they came to erroneous conclusions about the special paths of development of Siberia, and put forward the reactionary slogan of separating it from Russia. For the activities of S. o. 70s characterized by a passion for revolutionary populism. In the early 80s. evolution of S. o. took place. towards liberal populism, and from the 2nd half of the 90s. - bourgeois liberalism and counter-revolution. At the beginning of the 20th century. among S. o. a right-wing cadet-monarchist movement emerged (A.V. Adrianov, A.N. Gattenberger, N.N. Kozmin, etc.) and a left-wing one. The latter (E.E. Kolosov, P.Ya. Derber and others) was close to the Socialist Revolutionary Party. S. o. participated in the preparation of the anti-Soviet rebellion in Siberia. Later they actively collaborated with A.V. Kolchak, and after the restoration of Soviet power in Siberia they fled abroad. Some S. o. (Potanin, Yadrintsev, Kozmin, P. M. Golovachev) made a significant contribution to the development of culture and science in Siberia - history, archeology, ethnography.

Lit.: Lapin N.A., Revolutionary-democratic movement of the 60s. XIX century in Western Siberia, Sverdlovsk, 1967; Acceleration I. M., Plotnikova M. E., G. N. Potanin during the years of the socialist revolution and civil war in Siberia, in the collection: Questions of the history of Siberia, v. 2, Tomsk, 1965; Sesyunina M. G., G. N. Potanin and N. M. Yadrintsev - ideologists of Siberian regionalism, Tomsk, 1974.

L. M. Goryushkin.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB. 2012

See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what SIBERIAN REGIONALS are in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:

• SIBERIAN REGIONALS
  
• SIBERIAN REGIONALS in Modern explanatory dictionary, TSB:
  representatives of the socio-political movement of the 2nd half. 19 - beginning 20th centuries (G. N. Potanin, N. M. Yadrintsev, etc.); supporters of autonomy...
• SIBERIAN
  SIBERIAN REGIONAL WORKERS, representatives of public and political currents 2nd half. 19 - beginning 20th centuries (G.N. Potanin, N.M. Yadrintsev, etc.); supporters of autonomy...
• SIBERIAN
  Siberian - a princely family descended from Kuchum, the Tsar of Siberia. Descendants of Kuchum’s sons - Aley, Abdul-Khair and Altanai - until 1718 ...
• SIBERIAN in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  a princely family descended from Kuchum, the Tsar of Siberia. The descendants of Kuchum’s sons - Aley, Abdul-Khair and Altanai - until 1718 wore ...
• SIBERIAN in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  SIBERIAN UVALS, a system of hills within the Western Sib. plains. It stretches from the Ob to the Yenisei for 900 km. High up to 285...
• SIBERIAN in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  "SIBIRIC LIGHTS", lit.-art. and society - polit. Sib magazine writer's organization, since 1922. Founders (1998) - SP of Russia, Creative team ...
• SIBERIAN in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  SIBERIAN CHRONICLES, con. 16th-18th centuries (Esipovskaya, Kungurskaya, Remezovskaya, Stroganovskaya, etc.). Izv. St. 40...
• SIBERIAN in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia:
  ? a princely family descended from Kuchum, the Tsar of Siberia. Descendants of Kuchum's sons? Aleya, Abdul-Khair and Altanai? until 1718...
• SIBERIAN SOURCES, MAGAZINE
  Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Literary and journalistic magazine “Siberian Origins” The founder of the magazine is the administration of the municipal formation of Noyabrsk. Published from 1...
• TRIUMPHAL PROCESS OF SOVIET POWER
  the march of Soviet power 1917-18, the process of establishing Soviet power in the country in the period from October 25 (November 7), 1917 to February ...
• SIBERIAN LIGHTS in big Soviet encyclopedia, TSB:
  lights", a literary, artistic and socio-political magazine, organ of the RSFSR SP and the Novosibirsk branch of the RSFSR SP. Published monthly in Novosibirsk since 1922. The magazine ...
• SIBERIAN CHRONICLES in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  chronicles, Russian chronicles of the late 16th-18th centuries. on the history of Siberia (Esipovskaya, Kungurskaya, Remezovskaya, Stroganovskaya, etc.), the main source of the early history of Russian...
• OUR RUSSIA in Wiki Quotation Book.
• TOBOLSK DIOCESE in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Tobolsk and Tyumen Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Diocesan administration: Russia, 626100, Tobolsk, Tyumen ...
• RUSSIA, SECTION GEOGRAPHY in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  Rheographic studies Russian Empire and the development of geographical science in Russia. The first geographical information about the space that currently constitutes the Russian...
• BUNGE ALEXANDER ALEKSANDROVICH in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  Bunge, Alexander Alexandrovich - zoologist and traveler, son of Alexander Andreevich Bunge. Born in 1851, Bunge received his education in ...
• RADISHCHEV in the Literary Encyclopedia:
  Alexander Nikolaevich - revolutionary writer. Born into a poor noble family. He was brought up in the Corps of Pages. Then, among other 12 young men...
• PERMITIN in the Literary Encyclopedia:
  Efim Nikolaevich - Soviet writer. R. in a peasant family, in the city of Ust-Kamenogorsk b. Semipalatinsk region He studied at the city school. ...
• PAUSTOVSKY in the Literary Encyclopedia:
  Konstantin Georgievich - Soviet writer. Son of a railway engineer. He studied at Kiev, then at Moscow universities. He was a worker at metallurgical plants...
• NEW Settlers in the Literary Encyclopedia:
  Alexander Efremovich is a Siberian writer, wrote under the pseudonym A. Nevesov. R. in the mid-80s. During the February Revolution he was a commissar...
• NIKITIN in the Literary Encyclopedia:
  1. Ivan Savvich - poet and fiction writer. R. in Voronezh in the family of a wealthy tradesman, the owner of a candle factory. Having graduated from...
• REGIONALISM in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  a social movement in Russia before 1917 that sought cultural and economic independence of individual regions; see Siberian...
• SRs in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  (Socialist-Revolutionaries, Socialist-Revolutionaries), the largest petty-bourgeois party in Russia in 1901-22. In the course of the development of the Russian revolutionary movement, the E. Party underwent a complex evolution...
• SLOVTSOV PETER ANDREEVICH in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  Pyotr Andreevich, Russian historian of Siberia. Received spiritual education. Taught...
• SIBERIA in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  territory that occupies most of Northern Asia from the Urals in the west to the mountain ranges of the Pacific watershed in the east and from the shores ...
• SARYG-OOL STEPAN AGBANOVYCH in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  Stepan Agbanovich [b. 4(17).11.1908, now Torgalygsky village council of the Ovyursky district of the Tuva ASSR], Tuvan Soviet writer, people's writer of the Tuva ASSR (1973), honored ...