No 4 (2024)

Studies on the history of the Papacy in the nineteenth century have traditionally focused on the activities of the Pontiffs. The role played by the Roman Curia, the administrative body of the Holy See, has long been either overlooked or regarded as a secondary subject. As the major events of most pontificates have been studied, and with the 2022 reform of the Roman Curia, historians have become increasingly interested in the functioning of this institution and the participation of its officials in the decision-making process. Consequently, the question of sources on the history of the Roman Curia is of great relevance. The author of the article, taking the case of documents from the 1860s–70s as an example, demonstrates that the study of the role of the Curia in the history of the Papacy requires recourse to letters and notes of cardinals, correspondence and diaries of their contemporaries, as well as diplomatic correspondence and press reports. These sources allow one to see a more complex picture of what was happening in the Roman Curia during the period of the Holy See’s adaptation to the new realities associated with secularisation, the tendency of states to revise the model of relations with the Catholic Church, and the Pontiff’s loss of temporal authority. The author points out that sources on the history of the Roman Curia are concentrated in the Vatican and Italy, but a number of unpublished materials on the role of the administrative body of the Holy See are preserved in the archives of other countries, including Russia.

In recent years, the concept of “popular royalism” has gained popularity in the historiography of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. The author of the article analyses the main tenets and criticisms of this concept based on the writings of the three main theorists, Paul Choplin, Álvaro Paris, and Andoni Artola. The term “popular royalism” appeared as a result of an incomplete discussion about the essence of counter-revolution in European countries in the late 18th – early 19th centuries. According to the authors of the concept, royalist and counter-revolutionary movements were not retrograde in nature and met the actual demands of different layers of society in the situation of civil war. The counter-revolution gave rise to an alternative way of politicization of the masses and contributed to the emergence of new models of their political participation. The royalists monopolised old sources of political legitimacy and adapted familiar discourses and images to new challenges. Drawing on the idea of legitimacy, they put forward a wide range of demands that were not only conservative but also innovative. Nevertheless, specific regional casess, especially from Italian history, show that the cross-class alliances led by the royalists were temporary and unsustainable. These alliances contributed to the Restoration, but only with foreign military intervention. Yet, since the national historiographical traditions are still very stable, the proposed new concept of popular royalist movements requires substantial clarifications, taking into account the specifics of the historical development of different countries and regions.

The 1890s were a time of growing tension in Central Asia, stemming both from the geopolitical confrontation between the Russian and British empires and from the desire of Afghanistan and China to realise their own national interests and use the struggle of the dominant political forces to their own ends. One of the most difficult issues was the border dispute, i.e. fixing the border between Russia and Afghanistan, on the one hand, and Russia and China, on the other. Britain sought to exploit the differences on this issue to its own advantage, which could well have led to the outbreak of hostilities. The mechanism for identifying weaknesses in Russia’s position in the Pamirs comes out clearly in the 1898‒1899 reports of the British intelligence officer Ralph Cobbold, preserved in the National Archives of India. They characterise the actions of the Russian authorities in the Pamirs, the attitude of the local population to the opposing sides, and potential instruments of local influence that would allow Britain to bring the region under its control. The Russian diplomatic and military administrations were aware of the aspirations of the British Empire and used both the “stick” and the “carrot” to maintain the status quo in the region: in some issues they had to make concessions, in others the Russian side acted rigidly. Such an approach not only kept the Central Asian region in the frames of peaceful development, but also was one of the foundations of the conclusion of the Russian-British pact on the division of spheres of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia in 1907, which put an end to the Great Game and allowed the formation of the Triple Anglo-Franco-Russian alliance.

Korean anarchism is in many ways a unique phenomenon, as is the history of this Far Eastern country. Anarchists played a prominent role in the liberation of Korea from Japanese colonial rule, which dominated the country from 1910 to 1945. Along with Korean nationalists and communists, they became the “third force” in the anti-colonial struggle, which has attracted the interest of historians. A close connection with the issues of the struggle against the colonial power of Japan gave special features and direction to Korean anarchism, which was forced to oscillate between the demands for restoring the country’s independence and the anarchist tradition of denying any state as such. Unfortunately, the history of Korean anarchism remains virtually unexplored in Soviet and Russian academic literature. This article is intended to make the first steps in researching this topic. The article analyses the initial period in the development of the anarchist movement in the country, the time of its birth, drawing on original texts and publications by Korean socialists and anarchists of the early 1920s and taking into account the study of the issue in Korean and foreign historiography. The article shows that, as in other East Asian countries (Japan and China), anarchism in Korea was not initially identified as a special current in the socialist movement, and elements of anarchism, Bolshevism and social reformism were often mixed in the ideas of early Korean socialists. The separation of anarchism as a movement from this general socialist “conglomerate” occurred under the influence of disappointment in Russian Bolshevism and the results of the Great Russian Revolution.

Drawing on sources that were previously either inaccessible to researchers or poorly studied, including analytical notes by diplomatic and military experts, testimonies of direct participants in the events, as well as materials from special periodicals, the meaning and content of two concepts, “communist militarism” as interpreted by some leaders of the Comintern and the “Monroe Doctrine” as interpreted by representatives of the British establishment, are examined for the first time by means of comparative analysis. While analysing the policies of both Moscow and London in Central, East, and especially South Asia, the author seeks to identify common and specific features of both concepts in terms of their theoretical significance and practical feasibility during the so-called “era of pacifism” of the mid-1920s. Primary attention is paid to the problem of the formation of the Asian vector of foreign policy, which the Soviet leadership faced, in comparison with the desire of the British ruling circles to adapt the Empire to the realities of the industrial age.

Intelligence operations played at important role in the development of nuclear energy programs for military purposes in both the United States and the Soviet Union. While there is extensive information on Soviet intelligence activities in the USA, there remains a lack of information on American intelligence operations in the USSR. The author aims to examine the methods and sources used by American intelligence to gather information on Soviet nuclear capabilities from 1945 to 1949, a period marked by significant advancements in the Soviet atomic program. She highlights the importance of engaging with individuals involved in the Soviet atomic program as a key source of intelligence. By focusing on leadership structures, facility locations, and operational details, American intelligence services were able to gain valuable insights into the Soviet atomic program, albeit incomplete. This underscores the crucial role of Soviet atomic program’s secrecy and security measures in safeguarding national interests during the Cold War era.

In the twenty-first century, the importance of space exploration is increasing in the economic, political, and military spheres of social life. In this article, the author analyses, starting from the twentieth century, the historical experience of gaining access to space in the countries of Western Europe, including its regional integration association, the European Union, by means of launch vehicles. The absence of a detailed study of the role of France in the process of creating the first European launch vehicle in Russian historiography determines its novelty. The source base comprises archives, documents and materials of the French National Assembly, official structures of the EU and the European Space Agency (ESA), research articles, monographs drawing on memoirs. The purpose of the study is to analyze the history of the development and establishment of the French and European space exploration programs using the Ariane family of launch vehicles and the role of France in these processes. The author’s objectives are to identify the historical role of scientists from Germany, defeated in World War II, in the creation of France’s scientific and technical base, which allowed it to become the only nuclear power in the EU in the second half of the twentieth century and one of the world leaders in space exploration; to consider the process of providing autonomous access to space for Western Europe by creating its own launch vehicles with the key financial and technical contribution by France and with the participation of ESA; to analyse the role of space technologies and programmes in ensuring security, organizing reconnaissance from space. An analysis of the sources and literature on the topic leads to the conclusion that the pricing policy in the European space industry and strategic competition with space powers prevents European launch vehicles from strengthening their position in this market and achieving autonomy from third countries in access to outer space. Despite the long experience of post-war scientific and technological research and related advances in space exploration, it is difficult for France and Europe to achieve strategic autonomy in this important branch of human endeavour.

After the Second Karabakh War, the rivalry between Turkey and Iran for influence and positions in the South Caucasus has intensified. While there is a number of works focusing on Turkish-Iranian relations in the South Caucasus, the dynamics of their confrontational interaction in the region in the post-conflict period have not yet been examined. The relevance of the study is conditioned by the increased role of both Turkey and Iran in the contemporary geopolitics of the South Caucasus and their influence on the complex political and economic processes in the region. In the article, the author traces the strategy of both countries in the South Caucasus and highlights the negative impact of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the regional interests of the two countries. The study draws on historical data and a comparative study of the political and economic strategies of both Turkey and Iran in the South Caucasus, based on official documents, speeches of government officials, and international reactions to the actions of both countries in the region. Based on the data presented, the author concludes that there is a growing rivalry between Turkey and Iran in the South Caucasus. Based on their rich historical ties to the region, these countries are making efforts to realise their geopolitical interests. The conflict of interests between Turkey, which seeks to strengthen its influence in the South Caucasus by supporting Azerbaijan, and Iran, which strives to maintain its sphere of regional influence by further developing strategic partnership relations with Armenia, may increase tension and confrontation in the region.

During the Autumn Crisis of 1850, Russian diplomacy played a significant stabilising role. In particular, the Russian envoy to Vienna, Baron Peter von Meyendorff, made a considerable contribution to the peaceful resolution of the Austro-Prussian conflict, which threatened to escalate into a pan-European war. The author analyses Meyendorff’s political correspondence with Chancellor Nesselrode from the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire, a translation of which is appended. These papers outline the course, results, and evaluation of the negotiations held at Olmütz between the heads of the Prussian and Austrian foreign ministries on 28–29 November 1850. Meyendorff, who accompanied Austrian Minister Schwarzenberg on this trip, sent important and valuable information to St. Petersburg in an attempt to present both Vienna’s and Berlin’s position in a positive light in order to dispel Nicholas I’s mistrust of Prussian intentions. At the same time, Meyendorff’s role and contribution to the conclusion of this agreement are still a matter of debate among historians, with some of them considering Meyendorff’s mediation to be only a minor factor in the positive outcome of the negotiations. Far from claiming to bring complete clarity to this issue, this article is meant to put into the academic circuit new archival sources on this crucial event, which determined the further course of the German question and postponed Austria-Prussia’s armed confrontation for leadership in Germany for a decade and a half.

In the article the author analyses the career of Evgeny Petrovich Novikov (1826–1903), a prominent Russian diplomat who played a significant role during the Great Eastern Crisis of 1876–1878 and enjoyed considerable confidence of Chancellor Alexander Gorchakov. He was ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Greece, and Austria-Hungary during the years when relations with these countries were extremely important for Russian foreign policy. His biography has not yet been written, although Novikov’s name is mentioned in many a monograph and article on important topics of the Russian Empire’s foreign policy in the 1860s–1870s. The study draws on archival materials, published papers, and memoirs of Evgeny Novikov’s colleagues. Numerous fragmentary pieces of information about him available in the academic literature have been systematised. Having received an excellent education at Moscow University, Evgeny Novikov distinguished himself by his conscientiousness, shrewdness, and strong sense of responsibility in defence of Russia’s national interests. High-class professionals of this kind made up the diplomatic elite of the Russian Empire in the 19th century.