History of Russia

Home page » Journal sections » History of Russia
|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — V. A. Orav. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF THE HISTORICAL CENTER OF LENINGRAD IN 1949 — LATE 1980S AS AN OBJECT OF URBAN PLANNING POLICY

The historical center of St. Petersburg and its associated group of suburbs were recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1990. Well-preserved, despite the revolution, the Great Patriotic War and the siege, the city’s ordinary buildings became a significant factor in the designation of St. Petersburg as a major site of cultural heritage of humanity. Nevertheless, the old St. Petersburg was given to us in a changed form. The pre-revolutionary dwelling houses were demolished or rebuilt. A significant factor in these changes was comprehensive capital repair (CCR). The essence of the CCR was the replacement of all structural elements of the building (roof, ceilings, etc.) apart from brick walls only. In order to assess the degree of the impact on the historical center of Leningrad — St. Petersburg preservation, it is necessary to calculate the number of repaired and demolished houses. In this article (without claiming to finalize the conclusions) the calculation attempt is done. In the historiography this problem has not yet received coverage. From the early 1950s until 1981, the CCR was undergone 4.5 million square meters of residential space. Between 1950 and 1969, 3,113 houses were renovated. For the next two decades there is no data on the number of houses repaired, but a rough estimate is about another 1,420 houses. The total amount is about 4,533 houses, which is close to the data of the Housing Department of the Leningrad City Executive Committee of the early 1980s. During the 1980s, about 1.2 million square meters of total area (727 thousand residential, respectively) were subjected to CCR, and, therefore, about 625 houses. The total, according to preliminary calculations, is about 5158 houses for the whole Soviet period, but taking into account selective capital repairs. If we exclude the results of selective repairs, we can consider that about one third of the buildings was undergone comprehensive repair. To this we should also add that since the late 1970s about 30 houses have been demolished in the center. From the early 1960s to 1980, the number of pre-revolutionary houses in the center decreased from 7,619 to 7,411. Thus, the extent of the CCR impact on the preservation of the historic center should be recognized as significant.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — Yu. S. Nikiforov. “NOW WE’LL LIVE! BREZHNEV AND KOSYGIN ARE NOT KHRUSHCHEV”: THE DYNAMICS OF REGIONAL POWER IN THE UPPER VOLGA REGIONS ON THE EVE OF AND IN THE FIRST YEARS AFTER THE RESIGNATION OF KHRUSHCHEV

The article employs an analytical approach to examine the personnel changes that occurred in the corps of first secretaries of the regional committees of the Upper Volga regions on the eve of and in the initial years following Khrushchev’s resignation. It is important to note that the division of the regional apparatus of power in 1962 according to the production principle and the appearance of two first secretaries of the regional committee (industrial and rural) significantly affected the dynamics of regional power. It is noteworthy that the primary responsibility for communication with the center was assigned to the “senior secretary”. The material pertaining to the party power of the Upper Volga region discloses the practices of replacing key nomenclature The article employs an analytical approach to examine the personnel changes that occurred in the corps of first secretaries of the regional committees of the Upper Volga regions on the eve of and in the initial years following Khrushchev’s resignation. It is important to note that the division of the regional apparatus of power in 1962 according to the production principle and the appearance of two first secretaries of the regional committee (industrial and rural) significantly affected the dynamics of regional power. It is noteworthy that the primary responsibility for communication with the center was assigned to the “senior secretary”. The material pertaining to the party power of the Upper Volga region discloses the practices of replacing key nomenclature
posts in the regional government during the 1950s and 1960s. These include the transfer of experienced management personnel from region to region, the appointment of an ethnic Russian as a second secretary in the national (union) republics, and the consideration of the region’s production specialisation when appointing a regional leader. The publication presents a study of the personal characteristics of individual party leaders in the Upper Volga regions during the 1950s and 1960s. This study draws conclusions about two possible scenarios that may have occurred in the careers of the first secretaries of the Upper Volga regional committees in the period following Khrushchev’s resignation. The first scenario is the stabilisation of the power status in the region, and the second is the transfer of the first secretaries to Moscow to a higher post in the nomenclature hierarchy. The first option pertained to the case of Ponomarev and Loshchenkov, the respective party leaders of the Vladimir and Yaroslavl regions. The second variant was realised in the careers of the first secretaries of the Ivanovo and Kostroma regional committees — Kapitonov and Florentyev, respectively — who went to the capital for promotion. As was subsequently demonstrated, by the close of the 1960s, an emergent pattern of “regional political longevity” among the first secretaries of the regional committee had come to the fore, The article employs an analytical approach to examine the personnel changes that occurred in the corps of first secretaries of the regional committees of the Upper Volga regions on the eve of and in the initial years following Khrushchev’s resignation. It is important to note that the division of the regional apparatus of power in 1962 according to the production principle and the appearance of two first secretaries of the regional committee (industrial and rural) significantly affected the dynamics of regional power. It is noteworthy that the primary responsibility for communication with the center was assigned to the “senior secretary”. The material pertaining to the party power of the Upper Volga region discloses the practices of replacing key nomenclature posts in the regional government during the 1950s and 1960s. These include the transfer of experienced management personnel from region to region, the appointment of an ethnic Russian as a second secretary in the national (union) republics, and the consideration of the region’s production specialisation when appointing a regional leader. The publication presents a study of the personal characteristics of individual party leaders in the Upper Volga regions during the 1950s and 1960s. This study draws conclusions about two possible scenarios that may have occurred in the careers of the first secretaries of the Upper Volga regional committees in the period following Khrushchev’s resignation. The first scenario is the stabilisation of the power status in the region, and the second is the transfer of the first secretaries to Moscow to a higher post in the nomenclature hierarchy. The first option pertained to the case of Ponomarev and Loshchenkov, the respective party leaders of the Vladimir and Yaroslavl regions. The second variant was realised in the careers of the first secretaries of the Ivanovo and Kostroma regional committees — Kapitonov and Florentyev, respectively — who went to the capital for promotion. As was subsequently demonstrated, by the close of the 1960s, an emergent pattern of “regional political longevity” among the first secretaries of the regional committee had come to the fore, The article employs an analytical approach to examine the personnel changes that occurred in the corps of first secretaries of the regional committees of the Upper Volga regions on the eve of and in the initial years following Khrushchev’s resignation. It is important to note that the division of the regional apparatus of power in 1962 according to the production principle and the appearance of two first secretaries of the regional committee (industrial and rural) significantly affected the dynamics of regional power. It is noteworthy that the primary responsibility for communication with the center was assigned to the “senior secretary”. The material pertaining to the party power of the Upper Volga region discloses the practices of replacing key nomenclature posts in the regional government during the 1950s and 1960s. These include the transfer of experienced management personnel from region to region, the appointment of an ethnic Russian as a second secretary in the national (union) republics, and the consideration of the region’s production specialisation when appointing a regional leader. The publication presents a study of the personal characteristics of individual party leaders in the Upper Volga regions during the 1950s and 1960s. This study draws conclusions about two possible scenarios that may have occurred in the careers of the first secretaries of the Upper Volga regional committees in the period following Khrushchev’s resignation. The first scenario is the stabilisation of the power status in the region, and the second is the transfer of the first secretaries to Moscow to a higher post in the nomenclature hierarchy. The first option pertained to the case of Ponomarev and Loshchenkov, the respective party leaders of the Vladimir and Yaroslavl regions. The second variant was realised in the careers of the first secretaries of the Ivanovo and Kostroma regional committees — Kapitonov and Florentyev, respectively — who went to the capital for promotion. As was subsequently demonstrated, by the close of the 1960s, an emergent pattern of “regional political longevity” among the first secretaries of the regional committee had come to the fore, a phenomenon that can be attributed to the policy of “trust in personnel” espoused by Brezhnev. Following Khrushchev’s resignation, the center permitted the replacement of the post of first secretary of the regional committee with a representative of the local party organisation. This trend was manifestly evident in the Ivanovo region. a phenomenon that can be attributed to the policy of “trust in personnel” espoused by Brezhnev. Following Khrushchev’s resignation, the center permitted the replacement of the post of first secretary of the regional committee with a representative of the local party organisation. This trend was manifestly evident in the Ivanovo region. a phenomenon that can be attributed to the policy of “trust in personnel” espoused by Brezhnev. Following Khrushchev’s resignation, the center permitted the replacement of the post of first secretary of the regional committee with a representative of the local party organisation. This trend was manifestly evident in the Ivanovo region. posts in the regional government during the 1950s and 1960s. These include the transfer of experienced management personnel from region to region, the appointment of an ethnic Russian as a second secretary in the national (union) republics, and the consideration of the region’s production specialisation when appointing a regional leader. The publication presents a study of the personal characteristics of individual party leaders in the Upper Volga regions during the 1950s and 1960s. This study draws conclusions about two possible scenarios that may have occurred in the careers of the first secretaries of the Upper Volga regional committees in the period following Khrushchev’s resignation. The first scenario is the stabilisation of the power status in the region, and the second is the transfer of the first secretaries to Moscow to a higher post in the nomenclature hierarchy. The first option pertained to the case of Ponomarev and Loshchenkov, the respective party leaders of the Vladimir and Yaroslavl regions. The second variant was realised in the careers of the first secretaries of the Ivanovo and Kostroma regional committees — Kapitonov and Florentyev, respectively — who went to the capital for promotion. As was subsequently demonstrated, by the close of the 1960s, an emergent pattern of “regional political longevity” among the first secretaries of the regional committee had come to the fore, a phenomenon that can be attributed to the policy of “trust in personnel” espoused by Brezhnev. Following Khrushchev’s resignation, the center permitted the replacement of the post of first secretary of the regional committee with a representative of the local party organisation. This trend was manifestly evident in the Ivanovo region.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — K. A. Boldovskii. THE RECONSTRUCTION OF LENINGRAD DURING THE YEARS OF THE SIEGE — THE PRACTICE OF LABOR MOBILIZATIONS

The author conducts an analysis of the process of labour mobilisations of the Leningrad population during the Siege, with a view to restoring urban infrastructure and the economy. The population was engaged in activities contributing to the urban economy, thereby playing a pivotal role in ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of the Leningrad life support system during the Siege. The city’s leadership initiated the organisation of labour mobilisations at the onset of the war. The bureau of the City Party Committee, the Leningrad City Executive Committee and the Military Council of the Leningrad Front constituted the primary mobilisation management bodies. The resolution of the Leningrad City Executive Committee, adopted on June 27, 1941, defined the main categories of citizens who could be called up for labour mobilisation. The length of working hours and responsibility for evading labor mobilization were also determined. The administration of enterprises and institutions mobilised working residents of the city, while the management of educational institutions mobilised students. Household administrations at the place of residence mobilised non-working residents. During the initial phase of the war, extending until the spring of 1942, the majority of mobilised individuals were engaged in construction activities, including the erection of defensive structures, the execution of loading and unloading operations, the construction of bomb shelters, the remediation of the consequences of artillery shelling and bombing, the harvesting of firewood, and other associated tasks. In the initial period, there was a paucity of a clearly defined plan for mobilising the working population. By the onset of spring 1942, a functional management system for labour mobilisations had been formulated. This enabled the project to be expanded on a wide scale in 1942–1943.The most extensive measures involving the mobilisation of labour were implemented in the spring of 1942 (for the purpose of cleaning the city) and in the winter of 1942–1943 (for the purpose of clearing snow from the city and railway communications). Commencing in the autumn of 1943, the municipal administration established the primary objective of its operations as the organisation of work on the construction project. For its implementation, both mass labor mobilizations and mobilizations of certain categories of workers were widely used.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — A. A. Chapaev. ON THE UNOBVIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF MARCH 1, 1881: ON THE ISSUE OF THE CREATION OF THE SOCIETY OF LODGING HOUSES IN ST. PETERSBURG AND THE ROLE OF DR. N. N. DVORYASHIN

The article examines the role of Dr. N. N. Dvoryashin in the process of establishing the Society of Lodging Houses in St. Petersburg, one of the most important public organisations that emerged in the capital of the Russian Empire in the last third of the 19th century. The significance of this institution for St. Petersburg as the primary industrial center of the country is considerable. The organisers of this society furnished seasonal workers with affordable and hygienic lodging, a provision that would otherwise have exposed the workers to a considerable risk of illness, homelessness, and criminal exploitation, effectively transforming them from contributors to the city’s economy to a burden on its resources and, in some cases, a potential threat to its stability. Notwithstanding, the implementation of Dr. N. N. Dvoryashin’s concept required a period exceeding a decade. The subject of providing assistance to the homeless was first addressed by him in 1869. However, for there to be any change, events had to unfold in the most unanticipated manner. Indeed, the sequence of events was tragic, yet it proved conducive to the actualisation of the aforementioned concept. It was only after N. N. Dvoryashin’s proximity to the deathbed of the emperor that he was able to initiate the registration of his charitable society. In this regard, particular attention is warranted by the manner in which this process was influenced by the shift in the perception of his personality, contingent on the historical circumstances in which he was destined to become a direct participant.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — S. S. Kurochkin. D. A. MILYUTIN’S VIEWS ON THE BALKAN POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN 1861–1877

This article provides an examination of the political standpoint adopted by Dmitry Milyutin, Minister of War of the Russian Empire, with regard to the policy of the Russian Empire in the Balkan region during the period 1861–1877. The analysis of official data and personal sources from the minister’s personal archival fund has revealed a divergence of views between him and the Foreign Minister, Alexander Gorchakov, on the issues of international relations related to the ‘Eastern question’. This research has enabled the investigation of the search for solutions to international crises arising from the internal instability of the Ottoman Empire. The present study draws upon a range of historical sources to provide a detailed examination of the military cooperation that was established between the Russian Empire and the Principality of Serbia during the 1860s. The present study has sought to analyse the personal sources related to the period of the Great Eastern Crisis (1875–1877) to investigate the participation of Dmitry Milyutin in the decision-making process that led to the declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — A. V. Rozhina. INSURANCE OF CHURCH REAL ESTATE IN RUSSIA 1860–1870: THE FIRST EXPERIENCE OF ALEXANDER NEVSKY LAVRA

The study of insurance of church real estate commenced in the late 19th century, yet this subject remains under-researched. The church was a prominent socio-cultural institution within the Russian Empire during the 19th century. The article presents the findings of a study conducted on the insurance of buildings at Alexander Nevsky Lavra, which was undertaken in conjunction with an initiative to establish economic provisions for the compensation of expenses incurred in the event of a fire. In the 1860s and 1870s, the following structures were insured: the buildings of Lavra in Saint Petersburg, located on Nevsky Prospekt, Shlisselburg Prospekt, the embankment of the Black River, the embankment of the Great Neva, the music hall, the stable yard on Blackcrake Street and the brick factory. A thorough analysis of archival materials and published legislative acts has been conducted, revealing the features of insurance of church real estate in commercial societies on a voluntary basis. The acceptance of ‘on a risk’ of church property proved to be a lucrative undertaking for insurance companies. Initially, two companies claimed to insure the Lavra property: the Russian Insurance Company and the Saint Petersburg Insurance Company. This occurred during the 1970s. In the 19th century, the insurance of real estate was conducted by the Commercial Insurance Society. Insurance played a pivotal role in the preservation of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra property, as evidenced by the compensation paid in the event of fires, thereby enabling the restoration of damaged structures. The practice of insuring church buildings on a voluntary basis in the late 19th century was highly relevant, as it facilitated the effective organisation of the process of mutual insurance of church real estate on a mandatory basis at the beginning of the 20th century. An examination of the insurance business and acceptance ‘on fear’. The buildings belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church contribute to our understanding of the specifics of economic development in Russia during the years of the Great Reforms. They also demonstrate the search for solutions to economic mechanisms that protect property from fire.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — A. T. Urushadze. THE CAUCASUS GOVERNANCE REFORM OF 1844–1845 IN GOVERNMENT DISCUSSIONS AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE

The article is devoted to the reform of the administration of the Caucasus in 1844–1845. This transformation was connected with the appointment of M. S. Vorontsov to the post of the Caucasian governor with broad administrative rights and privileges. The article offers a new approach to the analysis of this historical event. Firstly, it is emphasized that the expansion of the rights of the head of the regional administration occurred as early as 1842. Secondly, it is argued that after deciding to appoint Mikhail Vorontsov to the Caucasus, Emperor Nicholas I was forced to formulate special conditions for this appointment. This came as a surprise to State Secretary M. P. Posen, who supervised the transformation of the regional administration. The administrative rights and prerogatives of the Caucasian governor were determined as a result of a discussion about the contents of the supreme rescript to the Caucasian governor. The article is based on both published and archived historical evidence.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — T. V. Andreeva. M. M. SPERANSKY AND “SANNIKOV LAND”: THE POLAR EXPEDITIONS OF F. P. WRANGEL AND P. F. ANJOU. 1820–1824

T. V. Andreeva. M. M. Speransky and “Sannikov Land”: The Polar Expeditions of F. P. Wrangeland P. F. Anjou. 1820–1824 // Petersburg Historical Journal, no. 4, 2025, pp. 133–147. DOI: 10.51255/2311–603X_2025_4_133 Abstract: In the early 19th century, the Russian Empire confronted a significant geopolitical challenge: theexploration of its northern territories. This undertaking was informed by the findings of domestic geographical surveys conducted during the 17th and 18th centuries. A notable example of this endeavour was the ‘Great Northern Expedition’, which took place from 1733 to 1743 under the direction of V. J. Bering. It is evident that since the onset…

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — M. A. Kozlova. CASES OF “INSULTING HIS MAJESTY”: DETECTION MECHANISMS, MOTIVES OF PARTICIPANTS AND THE REACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 19TH CENTURY

The present study is devoted to an examination of criminal offences committed against the Majesty in the first quarter of the 19th century. The article under scrutiny here elucidates the intricacies of recordkeeping, the processes involved in investigating cases, and the procedures for court decisions. The materials of the archives of the Senate and the State Council, which contain information on the procedure for filing charges, forms of denunciation and procedures of proceedings, are analysed. The difference between the approach to this type of crime at the local and central levels is demonstrated. It is imperative to undertake a thorough examination of the sources of information and to meticulously record any conversations that had a detrimental effect on the image of the monarch. The objective of the present study is to achieve an in-depth understanding of the historical process of the formation of the punitive policy of the Russian Empire regarding state crimes.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — D. V. Timofeev. REGULATION OF INTER-VERBAL INTERACTIONS AND THE SERFDOM ISSUE IN RUSSIA IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 19TH CENTURY

In Russia during the first quarter of the 19th century, the quest for solutions to the issue of serfdom was inextricably intertwined with the government’s policy of regulating interactions between various estates and intra-estate groups within Russian society. The article, which is based on an analysis of archival materials, presents an analysis of the content and focus of discussions on measures to prevent the fraudulent sale of peasants and the development of ways to introduce a contractual model of relations between peasants and landowners. In this context, the article presents an analysis of the arguments of senators, members of the Department of Laws of the State Council and the Council of the Commission for the Drafting of Laws, expressed during the discussion of the draft submitted by the Minister of Internal Affairs O. P. Kozodavlev on allowing all free Russian subjects to acquire populated lands. Consequently, rhetorical techniques, semantic accents and ideological attitudes were employed to justify the rejection of the proposed measure, thereby demonstrating, firstly, the recognition of the importance of maintaining state control in the sphere of interclass relations and, secondly, the understanding of the need to transition from a model of precedent-based response to private abuses of power by landowners to a model of preventive resolution of potentially possible conflict situations through the introduction of the practice of contractual relations.