Archived project

The Russian Far East in the Russian Empire/Soviet Union Imperial Transformation

Updates

0 new
0
Recommendations

0 new
0
Followers

0 new
0
Reads

0 new
26

Project log

Ivan Sablin
added a research item
This chapter addresses the engagement of Korean and Buriat-Mongol intellectuals in the Russian Revolution of 1917, the making of formal and informal Soviet empires, and the attempts to export socialist and broader revolutionary ideas to East and Inner Asia, as well as their cooperation with and opposition to Japanese imperial agents in the Russian Far East. Using the concepts of the “imperial revolution” and “new imperialism,” the chapter demonstrates how the attempts to reconfigure the ethnic hierarchies of the Russian Empire contributed to the alliance of non-Russian intellectuals with the Bolsheviks and how the logic of the Russian imperial transformation was projected onto neighbouring East and Inner Asian regions to be included in the new Communist empire.
Ivan Sablin
added a research item
Ähnlich wie in anderen Peripherien des Russischen Reiches konnte die Revolution von 1917 im Fernen Osten nicht klar in eine „Februar“- und eine „Oktober“-Periode unterteilt werden. Einige der allgemeinen Tendenzen, wie die breite Popularität des Sozialismus und die Linksradikalisierung im städtischen Umfeld, waren im Fernen Osten (den Gebieten zwischen dem Baikalsee und der Pazifikküste) ebenso präsent. Aber die meisten regionalen Aktivisten blieben moderat und versuchten, die demokratische Revolution fortzusetzen, nachdem die Bolschewiki und die linken Sozialrevolutionäre im Oktober 1917 in Petrograd einen Putsch inszeniert hatten, der später als Oktoberrevolution bekannt wurde. In der Region kamen die Bolschewiki nicht vor Dezember 1917 an die Macht, und selbst danach war die erste Sowjetregierung hier viel moderater als im europäischen Russland. Wie in vielen anderen Peripherien war die Revolution im Fernen Osten imperial bestimmt. Die regionalen Akteure waren unzufrieden mit dem Zustand der imperialen Politik, insbesondere mit der Verteilung von Sonderrechten und der politischen Repräsentation, dennoch versuchten sie, das Reich als gemeinsamen sozialen Raum zu erhalten. Die Revolution selbst sollte von unten nach oben durch die Selbstorganisation der russländischen imperialen Nation durchgeführt werden, in Übereinstimmung mit einem inklusionistischen bürgerlich imperialen Nationalismus. Für die Akteure im russischen Fernen Osten bedeutete dies die Forderung nach einer Vertretung der Region und ihrer nationalen Minderheiten in der zentralen Regierung und die demokratische Neuordnung des imperialen Gemeinwesens durch die Verfassungsgebende Versammlung und universell gewählte Selbstverwaltungsorgane. Weder der fernöstliche Regionalismus noch der Minderheitennationalismus widersprachen in dieser Hinsicht dem russländischen imperialen oder post-imperialen Nationalismus.
Ivan Sablin
added a research item
В апреле 1920 года на территории российского Дальнего Востока возникло новое государство, известное как Дальневосточная республика (ДВР). Формально независимая и будто бы воплотившая идеи сибирского областничества, она находилась под контролем большевиков. Но была ли ДВР лишь проводником их политики? Исследование Ивана Саблина охватывает историю Дальнего Востока 1900–1920-х годов и посвящено сосуществованию и конкуренции различных взглядов на будущее региона в данный период. Националистические сценарии связывали это будущее с интересами одной из групп местного населения: русских, бурят-монголов, корейцев, украинцев и других. В рамках империалистических проектов предпринимались попытки интегрировать регион в политические и экономические зоны влияния Японии и США. Большевики рассматривали Дальний Восток как плацдарм для экспорта революции в Монголию, Корею, Китай и Японию. Сторонники регионалистских (областнических) идей ставили своей целью независимость или широкую региональную автономию Сибири и Дальнего Востока. На пересечении этих сценариев и появилась ДВР, существовавшая всего два года. Автор анализирует многовекторную политическую активность в регионе и объясняет, чем была обусловлена победа большевистской версии государственнического имперского национализма.
Ivan Sablin
added 6 research items
Exploring the history of Koreans in the Russian Far East from the perspective of New Imperial History, the article demonstrates that political activism of Koreans and policies of the Russian (Soviet), Korean, and Japanese governments resulted in consolidation of two visions of their future. The first vision implied unity between the Koreans living in the Russian Far East with those who stayed in Korea, moved to Japan, or emigrated elsewhere and corresponded to the agenda of building a Korean nation. The second vision implied that the bilingual or Russified Koreans aspired to stay in the Russian Far East permanently, ensuring their own livelihood in the new regional frontier. The two currents interlaced in the project of Korean autonomy in a post-imperial state, first the Far Eastern Republic and later the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. The project involved inclusion of Koreans into the global spread of revolution through the Communist International and left open the issue of the duration of Korean presence in the Russian Far East. Its ultimate failure in 1926 left the Koreans partly excluded from the Soviet system without the institutional benefits of national autonomy.
Three major factions in the Russian Civil War in the Far East engaged in nationalist mobilization coming up with different rhetorical tropes and images in the 1920-1922 period. The ultra-royalist faction led by Mikhail Konstantinovich Diterikhs, which in 1922 controlled the Provisional Priamur Government in Vladivostok, portrayed the Romanovs as redeemers who had ended the “dark age” of the Time of Troubles (1598–1613) and called for a new Zemskii Sobor to elect a Romanov Tsar for the sake of new redemption from the “foreign” Bolsheviks. The socialist faction of the Far Eastern Republic (FER), taken over by the Bolsheviks, focused on the grievances caused by the Romanovs’ policies and the clashes with Japan and stressed the future role of the Russians as the first nation of toilers to lead the global struggle for social justice. The popular monarchist faction, established by Grigorii Mikhailovich Semenov, tried to find a middle ground by emphasising the popular role in ending the Time of Troubles and agitating for an elected muzhik Tsar. The ultra-royalist and monarchist rhetoric failed to mobilize the people of the Far East who did not identify with the Eurocentric images of the past and rebuked the cooperation between the monarchists and Japan. The socialist claims that the Romanovs and the Japanese accounted for the degraded present proved more relevant in view of the regional historical narrative featuring a series of conflicts with East Asian states, while the economic rather than racial interpretation of the Japanese policies and the inclusive character of socialism did not alienate ethnic minorities from the socialist faction.
The Far Eastern Republic is discussed as a post-imperial structure intended to accommodate the multiple loyalties of the population. The establishment of national autonomies (Buryat, Korean, Ukrainian, Jewish and Tatar) was one way of managing the diversity of its population. Though never fully implemented, the project contributed to a new form of governance in a multi-ethnic polity.
Ivan Sablin
added 2 research items
The Russian Far East was a remarkably fluid region in the period leading up to, during, and after the Russian Revolution. The different contenders in play in the region, imagining and working toward alternative futures, comprised different national groups, including Russians, Buryat-Mongols, Koreans, and Ukrainians; different imperialist projects, including Japanese and American attempts to integrate the region into their political and economic spheres of influence as well as the legacies of Russian expansionism and Bolshevik efforts to export the revolution to Mongolia, Korea, China, and Japan; and various local regionalists, who aimed for independence or strong regional autonomy for distinct Siberian and Far Eastern communities and whose efforts culminated in the short-lived Far Eastern Republic of 1920–1922. The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Far Eastern Republic, 1905–1922 charts developments in the region, examines the interplay of the various forces, and explains how a Bolshevik version of state-centered nationalism prevailed.
Tracing the emergence of the Russian Far East as a new region of the Russian Empire, revolutionary Russia, and the Soviet Union through regionalist and imperialist discourses and policies, this article briefly discusses Russian expansion in the Pacific littoral, outlines the history of regionalism in North Asia during the revolutionary and early Soviet periods, and focuses on the activities of the Far Eastern Council of People's Commissars ( Dal΄sovnarkom ), the Far Eastern Republic (FER), and the Far Eastern Revolutionary Committee ( Dal΄'revkom ). Inspired by Siberian regionalism and other takes on post-imperial decentralization, the Bolshevik Aleksandr Mikhailovich Krasnoshchekov and other regional politicians became the makers of the new region from within. Meanwhile, the legacies of the empire's expansionism, the Bolshevik “new imperialism” in Asia, and the Japanese military presence in the region during the Russian Civil War accompanied the consolidation of the Russian Far East.