卷 4, 编号 1 (2022)

The purpose of the article is to analyze the process of formation and centralization of the awarding system of the Red Army from the moment the Soviet Union was formed in 1922 until the abolition of republican awards in 1933. The material for the study was the research of V. A. Durov, N. N. Strekalov «Order of the Red Banner» and A. N. Kutsenko, Yu. D. Smirnov «Orders of the Union Republics». The authors used the methods of historicism, objectivity and systemicity. The need to process quantitative data led to the use of the statistical method. The authors divide this period into two stages. During the first stage, 1922-1924. The award system of the republics created during the Civil War functioned. The awarding of republican awards was made for the following reasons: the lack of an award system of the USSR and diverse opinions regarding the trends in its development; ongoing armed clashes, especially in the national outskirts, which required the awarding of distinguished soldiers; the presence in the republics of all elements of the award system (regulatory and legal base, republican authorities and orders). In 1924, the first all-Union hail was established, an allied award vertical was formed. At the same time, in the union republics formed during the administrative-territorial land survey of the USSR, their own awards are established. Thus, the Union and republican branches of the award system simultaneously functioned and carried out awarding. Union and republican awards were similar in name, meaning, compositional design, and benefits. To ensure the awarding of military personnel and military teams in peacetime, the award provisions of the orders were revised. After the formation of the union award system, in 1933 the republican awards were canceled. The highest state body, the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the USSR, was vested with the right to establish awards and award them. Republican CECs had the right only to petition for citizenship with union awards. Thus, the period under consideration is a transition from the republican award systems to the all-union.

A retrospective analysis of the historiography of the 19th-20th centuries. shows that in different epochs historians created the image of the past in different ways. The purpose of this article is to consider the reasons for the evolution of historical writing from the standpoint of an idealistic approach. The image of the past created as a part of the picture of the world within the framework of this approach, therefore the way of its construction directly depends on the main ideological ideas. When the worldview changes, the way of creating the past and its image also changes, as an integral part of the picture of the world. In the 19th century a classical model of historical research was created, within the framework of the scientific worldview. This way of creating the past forms several heterogeneous ideological currents, which are united by the belief in the existence of a single natural and human world, subject to the same laws, belief in the objectivity of the past, and applicability to the history of the methods of natural science. The crisis of science at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries destroyed the old picture of the world and image of the past changed. The new image created on the basis of a non-classical model of historical research. It is characterized by the opposition of nature and culture, as well as the constantly increasing role of man as the subject and object of history. Within the framework of non-classical historical writing, the idea of constructing the past is being developed. The historian turns from an observer describing historical events into their creator. Linguistics was chosen by some philosophers as the theoretical basis for creating the image of history in the second half of the twentieth century. Postmodernists have reduced history to a huge text that exists outside the historian and is at the same time the result of his activities. The study showed that it is the changes in the worldview that underlie the evolution of the image of the past.

Purpose. The article examines the historical conditions in which the activities of Peter the Great in Russia and Kangxi in China took place, the characteristics of the social system of that time, the history of the formation of two personalities, analyzes the policies pursued by the rulers, reforms and their achievements. The purpose of the study is to identify the features and differences of the development and governance of the country during the reign of Peter I in Russia and Kangxi in China and their contribution to history. At the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, two monarchs, Kangxi and Peter I, were extremely similar and contradictory, and their influence on the future generation was very different. Results: the article presents a comparative analysis of the reign of two great personalities to gain a deeper understanding of the history of the development of the two countries in the late 17th-early 18th centuries. The role of state leaders is especially important in history. In Russian and world history, the study of the personality of Peter I is one of the main points of researchers. Kangxi is as significant for China as his contemporary Peter the Great is for Russia. In the history of China, the Kangxi era became a symbol of prosperity, and the emperor himself was considered an exemplary ruler.

The article analyzes the policy of the Soviet state on the development of agriculture during the Great Patriotic War in terms of changing the size of sown areas and optimizing their structure. The source base for the study was the declassified resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks devoted to this problem, most of which are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. The author concludes that the increase in areas for potatoes and vegetables under wartime conditions was quite legitimate. As for grain crops, there were no conditions in the rear areas of the country for expanding their crops. In general, the work positively assesses the changes that occurred in those years in the structure of sown areas: the reduction in the sowing of annual grasses and the increase in areas under sugar beet and kok-saghyz was a consequence of the loss of important agricultural regions of the country, as well as the increased need of industry for raw materials.

In his review, Professor V.V. Zapariy gives a detailed analysis of a new monograph by the famous Ural historian Professor V.P. Motrevich, devoted to the analysis of the development of agriculture in the republics and regions of the Ural region during the Great Patriotic War. According to the reviewer, this is a comprehensive study of the industry, based on the huge statistical material introduced by the author into scientific circulation and showing the contribution of the industry and its workers to Victory.