CC BY
46
♦
♦
pened in the Stalingrad region by 1952 [7, p. 248]. Despite of partial compensation, the lack of able-bodied farm workers by means of other categories of people who met the age requirement, as well as the number of people working in farm production continued to reduce due to general rural population decrease. In 1945, some 350 thousand people took part in farm production in the Saratov region, while in 1947 that figure was 402 thousand workers, in 1948 - 392.7 thousand, in 1952 - 329 thousand people [1. On. 1. Д. 4479. Л. 18; On. 2. Д. 944. Л. 36; Д. 2936. Л. 266 - 272; 7, p. 247]. The same tendency was observed in the Stalingrad region where 311,002 persons worked in farm production in 1947; 318,574 people were employed in 1948; and in 1949 the figure was 298,800 able-bodied farm workers and their family members [2. On. 30. Д. 192. Л. 11].
Mobilization of urban people enabled to fill in the gap in rural labor force. But farm organizations often failed to provide urban people with everyday life and cultural conditions properly. That was the reason why mobilization plans didn't usually accomplish. Urban people unwillingly agreed to work in collective farms. For example, in the Saratov region 19,140 workers were supposed to be engaged in harvesting and gathering of crops in 1950, but in fact only 12,333 people (64.4%) got down to work [1. On. 1. Д. 4507. Л. 148; On. 2. Д. 2570. Л. 131, 135; Д. 1628. Л. 176].
Due to demographic and migration processes women turned out to be the main productive force in the early 1950s especially in the Stalingrad region where the number of female exceeded male population 2 times: 116.1 thousand as against 58.2 thousand. The same share of able-bodied women we find out in collective farms of the Saratov region: 149,955 (64.7%) as against 81,598 (35,2%) [1. On.
2. Д. 2936. Л. 266 - 272; 10, p. 291; 7, p. 248]. Minding the fact that in 1946 the share of men and women in collective farms made up 66% and 34% respectively [4, p. 119], we may suppose that there was a shape of uptrend in the gender structure of population.
Aged people and partially able-bodied demobilized men took active part in farm production. The latter group was referred to in farms as handicapped people and adult disable individuals. That very group of workers met a lack of labor force in collective farms. In 1945, the share of all aged farm workers, handicapped and other disable people was 11.4%, while in 1952 the number was 18.8% [1. On. 1. Д. 4479. Л. 18; On. 2. Д. 2936. Л. 266 - 272]. Aged collective farm workers reserved the right to have households, use collective farm grasslands and other benefits. Households of aged collective farm workers were exempted from taxes and deliveries to the state [5, p. 156 - 157, 281].
During the searched period a great number of adolescents worked in collective farms. In peace time child labor in farm production gradually decreased. For example, in the Saratov region 20% of all farm workers were children during 1945 while in 1952 the figures were 14.6%. [1. On.
УДК 94(47)
ACCESSION OF THE
1. fl. 4479. Ë. 18; On. 2. fl. 2936. Ë. 266 - 272]. That trend could be referred to the whole Soviet Union [5, p. 156]. Although in the early 1950s most adolescents still lived in villages and were employed in farms, a significant number of teenagers intended to get job in industry and transport. In 1953, about 68.2% of all youth in the Saratov region had work in collective farms [1. On. 2. fl. 2936. Ë. 266 - 272]. The numbers in the Stalingrad region happened to be even lower - 57% [6, p.110]. The major reason of children labor reduction was dismissal of the Soviet Union to take urgent measures concerning agricultural management, as the economy of the country was becoming a peaceful economy. In 1947 according to the current resolution dated April 13th, 1942, adolescents and family-members of collective farm workers were to work out at least 50% of workdays, and starting from 1947 mandatory number of workdays remained only for adult able-bodied members of farm artels [9, p.106].
In conclusion we should notice that history analysis of postwar years proves that rural labor resources turned out to be the main source for industry. Despite of positive trends which included birth rate increase, decrease of population outflow from rural areas, age and gender structure changes of society, population size engaged in farm production still shrank.
1. Государственный архив новейшей истории Саратовской области (rAHMCO). Ф. 594.
2. Центр документации новейшей истории Волгоградской области (UqHMBO). Ф. 113.
3. Волков И.М. Трудовой подвиг советского крестьянства в послевоенные годы. М., 1972.
4. Добродеева Т.А. Комсомол Нижнего Поволжья - активный помощник партии в выполнении четвертого пятилетнего плана (1946 - 1950 гг.): диp. ... канд. ист. наук. Саратов, 1970.
5. История советского крестьянства: в 5 т. Т. 4. Крестьянство в годы упрочнения и развития социалистического общества, 1945 - конец 1950-х годов / отв. ред. И.М. Волков. М.: Наука, 1988.
6. Иваницкий В.В. Исторический опыт и проблемы развития аграрного производства Нижневолжской деревни в первое послевоенное десятилетие (1945 - 1955): диp. ... канд. ист. наук. Саратов, 1999.
7. Кузнецова Н.В. Нижнее Поволжье в 1945 - 1953 гг.: экономические и социальные проблемы послевоенного восстановления и развития: диp. ... д-ра ист. наук. Саратов, 2003.
8. Павлов В.И. КПСС в борьбе за восстановление и развитие народного хозяйства в послевоенный период (1946 -1952 гг.): диp. ... канд. ист наук. Саратов, 1966.
9. Томилин В.Н. Трудовой подвиг крестьянства черноземного центра России в годы Великой Oтечественной войны // Актуальные проблемы современного гуманитарного знания: материалы межвузовского российского семинара. Вып. 4. / под ред. д-ра ист. наук, проф. В.Я. Романченко. Саратов: Изд-во «Саратовский источник», 2010.
10. Энциклопедия саратовского края. Саратов: Приволжское книжное издательство, 2002.
R.M. Sultanbekov DARGINS TO RUSSIA
The paper considers mutual relations of Dargins with Russia since VII century. The author describes complex process of inclusion of the Caucasian people (in particular, the Dargins) in the Russian Empire.
Key words: the Dargins, accession, mutual relations, Dagestan, unions of rural communities.
P.M. Султанбеков О ВХОЖДЕНИИ ДАРГИНЦЕВ В СОСТАВ РОССИИ
В статье рассматриваются взаимоотношения даргинцев с Россией, начиная с VII в. Описывается сложный процесс включения кавказских народов (в частности, даргинцев) в состав Российской империи.
Ключевые слова: даргинцы, присоединение, взаимоотношения, Дагестан, союзы сельских общин.
Accession to Russia was of great importance for the history of the Dagestan people. Russian multinational state was formed for centuries by countries joining it. People living on these vast territories were culturally, economically and denominationally different. Some countries voluntarily became part of Russia; other countries quested for protection or were annexed through long, bloody wars or territorial sharing out after victorious campaigns.
Due to political instability in the south of Russia as well as the growing threat of political, religious and ethnic extremism, there is a need to assess impartially the process of accession of the Dagestan and Caucasian people to Russia. We also have to give objective appraisal of the process of inclusion of the small Caucasian people (including the Dargins) in the Russian Empire. We should point out positive and negative sides of the process.
One more problem we should discuss is to define the date or event which could be thought a bench mark of accession of numerous Caucasian people to Russia. The researchers cannot give a definite answer. Some researchers think it is 1802, when Georgievsky Treaty was signed [15, p. 15]. Other researchers think it is 1813, when the Treaty of Gulistan was concluded [4, p. 284]. The third group of researchers thinks it is 1859, when Imam Shamil surrendered to the Russian troops [18, p. 131]. We should mention that each point of view has its right to exist.
The Dagestan people, including the Dargins, came under the protection of the Russian Empire, but it was not a one-time action. The process of accession had a long history of interrelations among the Russians, the Dargins and the Caucasian people. At times these interrelations were either trade and economic or became military confrontations.
First of all we should briefly examine geographic and historic information about the Dargins as one of Dagestan ethnic groups. The Dargins, including the Kaytaks and Ku-bachins (400,000 people according to the 2001 Census) live in the lower and middle foothills and mountain areas of inner Dagestan. Their traditional occupations are agriculture and stock breading. Their traditional household crafts are wool working, metalworking, woodworking, stone working, and fell working. Far outside Dagestan best known are the weapons, silverware, and jewelry of Kubachi; the agricultural implements and tools of Kharbuk; the blades of Amuzgi; the stonecutting of Sutbuk; the wooden implements and vessels of Kaitag; and women's shoes of Gubden, etc.
In the historic period under consideration the Dargins were divided into territory-political units mostly known in historical literature as rural community alliances: Akusha-Dargo, Kaba-Dargo, Burkun-Dargo, Kaitag-Dargo, Surga, Kubachi etc. [16, p. 65].
First interrelations between the Dargins and the Russians are dated to the 7th - 11th centuries AD, when the latter came to Derbent to trade. The Russians often concluded alliances with the Goretz and fought against the
rulers of Derbent and Shirvan. In the late 9th - early 10th centuries the Russians and the Dargins, including the Khaidaks, took active part in internal political events in Derbent [4, p. 137]. It should be noted that these events happened before the Dargins were exposed to Islam. When some Dargins adopted Islam, the situation in Khaidak and al-Karakh changed radically. In 1032 the Russians allied with the Alans and inhabitants of Sarir and organized a campaign against Shirvan. On their way back Russian and Alan troops were betrayed by the rulers of Derbent and Sarir The troops were defeated by the Khaidaks. In 1033 wishing to revenge the Russians and Alans organized a campaign against Derbent. The Russian Alan army was defeated by the united forces of Mussulmans of Derbent, Khaidak, al-Karakh in the place named al-Kerdge (modern Urkhalakh). The army had to retreat [11, p. 73].
There is no information about other Dargins' participation in these events. They might not take part in the battle, as it is known that al-Karakh was the extreme advanced post of Muslim possessions in the 10th century. Its ruler bore the title Marzban meaning “boundary guardian” [19, p. 38].
Subsequently the Dagestan people did not maintain contact with the Russians due to Mongolian and Turkish invasion and Timur (Tamerlane) troops in the 12th - 14th centuries.
There were more intimate connections between the Dargins and the Russians since the late 16th century. In 1556 the Khanate of Astrakhan came under the protection of the Russian Empire, and Russian borders came close to Caucasian territory.
The Russian troops under the command of voivodes Khvorostinin and Zasekin in 1591 - 1594, voivodes Buturlin and Plescheev in 1604 - 1605 tried to conquer Shamkhal possessions [3, p. 239 - 240]. To repulse aggression the Akushins, being allies with Shankhal Tarkovsky, took part in the events of the late 16th - the early 17th. The army of Sultan-Mut ruler of Andirey numbered “13,000 people, including a lot of Goretz” [2, p. 110]. To my mind, there was a great deal of the Dargins in the volunteer corps, as they were the Kumyks' closest neighbors.
Foreign relations between the Dagestan people and the Russians were broken off for a century (right up to the late 17th century) due to internal political situation in Russia. Later V.A. Potto, analyzing unsuccessful Buturlin's campaign, wrote “that disastrous campaign ended and effaced all the traces of Russian presence in Dagestan for 118 years” [14, p. 65].
Since the 18th century Russia became politically active anew in Caucasian area. Owing to Peter the Great's Caspian Campaign 1722 Russia managed to strengthen its hand in Pre-Caspian region of Dagestan. According to Saint Petersburg Peace Treaty 1723 and Treaty of Istanbul 1724 with Iran and Turkey, a considerable part of Dagestan came under the protection of the Russian Empire [9, p. 10]. Several rural community alliances such as Akusha-Dargo,
♦----------------------------------------------------------
Kaitag-Dargo, Kaba-Dargo, and Kubachi together with Ahmed-Khan Utsmy of Kaitag administered the oath of allegiance to Russia while Burkun-Dargo, Surga, which were under the influence of Kazi-Kumukh Surkhay Khan, took out Turkish citizenship [5, p. 101].
Administration of the oath of allegiance to Russian crown in 1725, accompanied by the return of hostages who later were being kept in Derbent military commandant's office was the initial stage of accession of the Dargins to Russia.
Subsequently in the 18th century owing to weakening Russia's hand in the Caucasus, and in Dagestan in particular, the process of inclusion of the Caucasian people in the Russian Empire came to a halt. The Dagestan people, including the Dargins, turned out to be got involved in the struggle among Turkey, Iran, and Russia, supporting one party or another.
In 1802 Akushinsky cadi was invited to the congress of Dagestan and Azerbaijan feudal lords in Georgiyevsk. He spoke for the rural community alliances as one of the most powerful political forces in the Upland Dagestan. The cadi got an annual stipend of 500 silver roubles [15, p. 15].
In 1812 on the eve of the Treaty of Gulistan, all rural community alliances administered the second oath of allegiance to Russia and returned hostages. According to the oath of allegiance dated July 23, 1812, Russia pledged to support trade in the communities, keep their governance invariable, and not to station troops in the country without communities' consent. In turn these communities promised not to render assistance and protection to Russia's enemies and fight against Russian troops [10, c 108]. That oath of allegiance helped achieve mutually beneficial agreement, making possible further integration of the rural community alliances into multinational state of Russia. But the bloody policy of suppression of the Goretz conducted by A.P. Ermolov, Vicegerent of the Caucasus, changed the Dargin communities' attitude to the tsarist government [7, p. 475].
In 1818 - 1819 Akusha-Dargo became the center of uprising in Dagestan, directed against the tsarist forces. Feudal lords of Dagestan, struggling against the tsarist forces, relied on the Akushins whose military forces amounted to 25,000 people. Besides the Akushins, the Surgins, the Tsudakhars and other Dargins took part in the uprising [8, p. 311].
In December 1819 A.P. Ermolov managed to break down the Dargins' resistance and occupied Akusha settlement. Akusha and Surga had to pay a tribute, 2,000 sheep and 400 silver roubles a year respectively [18. p. 14].
All these communities swore allegiance to Russia. They were allowed to keep their governance and independence of home rule. The Russian government required loyalty to Russian troops and authorities in the Caucasus from the communities.
Later Akusha-Dargo kept loyalty to Russia. In 1826 Akusha-Dargo was released from duties and acquired a special status within Russian Empire [13, p. 79]. Surga, Muira, and Kubachi remained rebellious and did not pay a tribute, though they were officially a part of Derbentsky government since 1821 [17, p. 41].
Dargin communities' attitude to the Goretz national liberation movement in the 1820s - 1850s was mixed. In two imams' (Ghazi Muhammad and Gamzat-bek) time the communities spoke openly that they would not take part in the war against Russian forces. Moreover, in 1832 when Gamzat-bek tried to cut his way through Gergebil -
Khadzhalmakhi - Levashi to the plain, the Dargin combined forces defeated his troops near Gergebil [6, p. 23]. However, in 1843 -1844 when there was the zenith of Imam Shamil's career, the Akushins, the Surgins, and the Tsudakhars went over to Imam Shamil's faction and took an active part in the war against Russia [12, . 789]. There were fears that Dargin communities might secede from the Russian Empire. The tsarist government realized that the situation in Dagestan could become critical. They did their best to keep Dargin communities as part of Russia.
In 1844 such communites as Akushinsky, Tsudakhar-sky, Usishinsky, Muginsky, Mekeginsky, Urakhinsky formed Darginsky government, while Surginsky community remained separate. Such communities as Kubachi, Muira, Itsari became part of Utsmiate of Kaitag. Burkun-Dargo became part of Khanate of Kazi-Kumukh [1, p. 59].
In 1860 when military-public department was formed in Dagestani region, Surginsy community became part of Darginsky government. The other communities were merged in Kaitago-Tabasaransky government, besides Burkun-Dargo, which was part of Kazi Kumukhsky government till the late 19th century [17, p. 65].
In turn, governments were divided into provinces (or naibstvo) headed by naibs (deputies, representatives), which were located in the main settlements of communities. Existing authorities of communities remained. They consisted of elders, cadis, mangushes, executors, and according to new regulations uzbashes. The latters were appointed by naibs, whereas naibs were appointed by governors. A Russian commissioned officer held the position of governor Legal procedure was based on Adat (the set of cultural norms, values, customs, practices, and local and traditional laws). All Dargin communities had their Adats written at that time.
Thus Dargin rural communities as well as other communities of Dagestan passed a long difficult way of merging into the Russian Empire. The interrelations between Dargin communities and the Russian authorities in the Caucasus were of mixed nature. Peaceful commercial and economic as well as cultural relations changed into military confrontation, which postponed good neighborhood for years to come.
In spite of the difficulties, the relations between the Dagestan people, including the Dargins, and other people of Russia stood the test of time with credit during the WWII. Thousands of Dargin sons and daughters defended their dearly loved multinational motherland.
The Dargins and other Dagestan people believe their future is closely connected with the Russians and other people of multinational Russia. They believe in unity there is strength. The Dagestan people understand perfectly that the disconnection from the Russian Federation means breakup of Dagestan.
1. Алиев Б.Г. Союзы сельских общин Дагестана в XVIII -первой половине XIX вв. Махачкала, 1999.
2. Бакиханов А.- К.Л. Гюлистан-Ирам. Баку, 1991.
3. Белокуров С.А. Сношение России с Кавказом. М., 1889.
4. Гасанов М.Р. Дагестан в истории Кавказа и России. Махачкала, 2004.
5. Гербер И.Г. Описание стран и народов вдоль западного берега Каспийского моря. 1728 г. // ИГЗД. М., 1958.
6. Гамзат-бек - второй имам Чечни и Дагестана. Кавказский сборник. Т. 31. Тифлис, 1878.
7. История Дагестана. Т 1. М., 2004.
8. Магомедов P.M. Даргинцы в дагестанском историческом процессе. Кн. 2. Махачкала, 1999.
9. Материалы для истории Дагестана // ССКГ. Вып. II. Тифлис, 1869.
10. Материалы по истории Дагестана и Чечни / под ред. С. Бугауева и Р. Магомедова. Махачкала, 1940
11. МинорскийВ.Ф. История Ширвана и Дербэнда. M., 1963.
12. Письмо кн. Аргутинского к ген. Нейдгардту от 27.11. 1843 г. // АКАК. Т. 4. Тифлис, 1870.
13. Письмо Зухум-кадия к ген. Ермолову от 15 июня 1826 года // АКАК. Т. 6. Ч. 2. Тифлис, 1875.
14. Потто В.А. Два века Терского казачества (1577 -1801). Ставрополь: «Кавказская библиотека», 1991.
15. Рамазанов А.Х. Россия и Дагестан в XIX - начале XX веков. Махачкала, 2003.
1 6. Султанбеков P.M. Сюрга в XVIII - первой половине XIX вв. Махачкала, 2008.
17. Хашаев Х.М. Общественный строй Дагестана в XIX в. М., 1961.
18. ЦГАРД. Ф. 11. Оп. 1. Д. 19.
19. Шихсаидов А.Р. Ислам в средневековом Дагестане. Махачкала, 1969.
УДК 94(47) I.A. Uvarov
SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF MILITARY SCHOOLS IN RUSSIA at the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th centuries
The paper examines the social principle of recruitment for military schools in Russia at the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20 centuries. Particular military schools are named; special features of formation of social composition in high schools are defined. The author demonstrates dynamics of liberalization of social composition in military schools in connection with changes in political system of the country.
Key words: military schools, social composition, political system.
И.А. Уваров
СОЦИАЛЬНЫЙ СОСТАВ ВОЕННО-УЧЕБНЫХ ЗАВЕДЕНИЙ РОССИИ в коние XIX - начале XX веков
В статье рассматривается процесс реализации социального принципа комплектования военно-учебных заведений России в конце XIX - начале XX вв. Называются конкретные военно-учебные заведения, определяются особенности формирования социального состава вузов. Показана динамика демократизации социального состава военных училищ в зависимости от изменения политической системы стран
Ключевые слова: военные училища, социальный состав, политическая система.
It is widely known that tsarist Russia's army was organized on social origin principles: noblemen were commissioned officers; peasants, workers and other common people were soldiers. For example, command positions in the noble cavalry were replaced in accordance with family origin. Sotnik, golova and colonel were not military ranks in the first half of the 17th century. These interim duties were entrusted with wellborn noblemen or boyars. When war or regular muster was over, the cavalry was disbanded and commanders' positions were abrogated. Though that rule had existed for two centuries, some exceptions were made from time to time. Family origin came before military science knowledge, when officers were appointed to commanding positions. The same situation was in the Streltsy regiments [1, p. 166 - 167].
But sometimes, because of war or political reasons, the authorities had to diverge from the established procedure. Representatives of different social classes became commissioned officers even in Peter the Great's time. In particular, in 1705 there were 171 representatives of lower social classes (huntsmen and stablemen, boyars, tradespeople, clergymen, soldiers and non-commissioned officers, etc.) out of 201 students of the nautical school; in 1705 there were 379 students out of 505; in 1715 there were 311 students out of 427 [1, p. 172]. There were a lot of students from lower social classes in Navigatskaya School. But they could get promoted by their chiefs and become commissioned officers after some time [2, p. 19 - 20]. Opening up
the Engineering School in Moscow in 1712, Senate decreed “to admit to this school 77 people of all sorts of social classes” [3, p. 9 - 10].
Peter the Great successors' foreign policy was sluggish. That's why they did not let representatives of lower social classes become noblemen through military service. Military schools became schools of the nobility. In particular, the Cadet Corps Service Regulations 1766 underlined the rule prohibiting “to admit to military academies boys without papers proving their noble origin and baptism” [4].
Those regulations were being kept till the 1860s -1870s, when the Milutin reforms took place. The governmental decision to have only noblemen in military schools had a bad effect on commissioned officers reinforcement. In fact, a lot of men were disentitled to make a career in military forces. Meanwhile, the representatives of lower social classes were actually the best “soldiers” and could be of benefit to Russia.
Various reforms, taking place in the 1860s - 1870s, made it possible for commons (people not of noble birth) to become officers. But social origin of students in different military schools considerably varied. In particular, social origin of students entering military schools largely depended on social origin of those boys graduating from military academies (the Cadet Corps) where children of commissioned officers (hereditary or personal noblemen) studied. Nevertheless social origin of students in military schools was substantially different from social origin of
