How we almost killed each other

In 2009, I wrote about a fictional occupation of the USSR by the USA: The World War that never happened. Recently, I learned about some more wars that never happened. Or was it the same war?

The article was published at OrientalReview.org: Britain Planned to Attack USSR on June 12, 1941

The first potential war took place in the early 1940, when Britain and France planned an invasion into the Soviet Union. Yugoslavian, Romanian, Greek and Turkish armies, directed by British and French governments, had to attack Soviet Caucasus and from the Balkans. Perhaps, this was why they had rejected the Soviet proposal to join forces to contain the Nazi Germany.

The goal of the second potential war (June-July 1940) were Soviet oil fields: “Baku bombing would put the Soviets into the critical situation, as long as Moscow requires every single drop of oil that is produced today in order to provide the fuel for the Soviet motorized units and the agricultural equipment”.

The Soviet oil fields worried the European allies even in 1941: “On the 12th of June Heads of Staff Committee decided to assume the measures that would allow to conduct the strikes against the oil refining plants in Baku using the average bombers from Mosul in Iraqi Kurdistan without any delays”

Some years later, when the Soviet Union recuperated after the WWII, the Soviets managed to retaliate. At least, in the same potential way. The “Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security (PHP)” features a huge amount of Warsaw Pact documents, including some war plans, like this 1964 plan: “This war plan provides describes the operations of the Czechoslovak People's Army in wartime. Under the scenario, the NATO countries launch surprise nuclear strikes against the main political and economic centers of Czechoslovakia. It also assumes that the combat actions of both NATO and Warsaw Pact troops in the initial period of war will have the character of forward contact battles. It offers conclusions as to the anticipated opposing NATO units and enemy war aims. The document lists the specific tasks and lines of advance for major elements of the Czechoslovak People's Army, with the main axis of attack concentrated in the direction of Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Strasbourg, and Epinal, and with the aim of holding the areas of Langres, Besançon, and Epinal one week after the outbreak of war.”

As far as I can understand, the Soviet war plans were based on the premise that NATO would attack first. The NATO plans seem to agree.

Rodric Braithwaite on the Afghan war 1979-89

Rodric Braithwaite, former U.K. ambassador to Russia and the author of the book “Afgantsy. The Russians in Afghanistan 1979-89” was interviewed by Olga Smirnova from the BBC Russian Service. The original text of the interview is here: "Афганцы": новая книга бывшего британского посла в Москве. I could not find the English text, so below is an automatic translation made by Google, where I fixed the most obvious errors, trying to make the text a bit easier to understand.

The book "Afgantsy. The Russians in Afghanistan, 1979-89" by Sir Rodric Braithwaite, British ambassador to Moscow from 1988 to 1992, was published in Britain.

After 1992, Rodric Braithwaite was, in particular, advisor to Prime Minister John Major on international affairs and chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

"Afgantsy" is the third book of Braithwaite. The previous one, "Moscow 1941: the city and its inhabitants," was devoted to the Battle of Moscow. The new book continues the theme of the people at war. BBC correspondent BBC Olga Smirnova interviewed the author.

BBC: Why did you choose this topic for the new book?

Rodric Braithwaite: I think there are few good books, especially in the West, about what really happened in Afghanistan. And I am very sympathetic to the Soviet soldiers who fought there. They were strongly criticized outside the Soviet Union and in Russia.

As in my previous book on Russia, I wanted to explain to the Western reader that there is nothing unusual in Russians and that they are people just like us. They are no worse and no better than us. And you can understand Russian politicians, Russian soldiers, Soviet women who served in Afghanistan, and there were many - they can be understood in human terms.

I would like to amend the myths about the Afghan war, which existed during the Cold War.

BBC: What do you think were those myths?

RB: In the West there are two main myths about the Afghan war. The first - that when invading Afghanistan, the Soviet Union pursued imperial aims, that is, that they wanted to expand the Soviet empire and would jeopardize the supply of oil to the West from the Gulf countries.

Of course, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan for very different reasons. The Soviet Union launched the Afghan campaign for defensive purposes. Their concern was the instability in Afghanistan, which bordered on the USSR. The Soviets were concerned, probably wrongly, that Americans would use Afghan territory against the interests of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet leaders were also worried by drug trafficking from Afghanistan.

And it is true that the Soviet leaders hoped to build a better society in Afghanistan.Similar hopes were in Western countries before the recent invasion of Afghanistan.

A second major myth is associated with the reasons why the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan. It did not happen because the Soviet Union was defeated in this war. Nobody won a victory over the 40-th army. The army itself left Afghanistan, because it became obvious that the war was futile, it clearly did not achieve the goals.

The third myth is that a major role in the Afghan war was played by Stinger anti-aircraft guided missiles supplied by the Americans to the Mujahideen. This is totally wrong. Gorbachev invited the Afghan leader to Moscow in 1985 and told him that the Soviet troops are going to withdraw from Afghanistan, and the first Soviet helicopter was show down by a Stinger only 11 months after this conversation. So the weapons supplied by the U.S. had no effect on the political decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Well, probably, the last myth is that the war in Afghanistan was a particularly brutal war. Yes, the Soviets bombed villages, killing many civilians. But what happened in Afghanistan was no worse than what had happened in Vietnam. War is always cruel. And all military interventions are particularly brutal, especially when combined with the civil war, as it was in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

BBC: When writing the book you talked to a lot of veterans. What's new did you discover talking to them?

RB: I was most surprised that the veterans are returning to Afghanistan, where they were fought. They meet the people they fought against. I did not expect it. They return to Afghanistan as tourists.

On YouTube you can watch films they made in Afghanistan. They return to the outposts, where they served for many months. They come to Afghanistan because they love this country and love the Afghans.

BBC: In 2008 you visited Afghanistan. How do they now recall the war of 1979-89?

RB: In 2008 I asked the Afghans, when it was better in Afghanistan - with the Russians or now?

And Afghans always answered: "Why do you ask such a stupid question? Of course, it was better when the Russians had been here."

Even one of the Mujahideen, with whom I spoke told me that "At least, the Russians fought as honest soldiers, and Americans simply destroy us from the air."

BBC: In your book you intentionally avoid comparing the Afghan war of 1979-89, and the current war?

RB: Of course, intentionally, because between there is a big difference between the wars. My book is historical one, not political, and I'm not trying to enter in controversy.

While there are parallels between the two wars, may the readers themselves think about it.

Western politicians are now saying that we will prevail in Afghanistan.

We say that we will leave there, when a strong government and a strong Afghan army will appear in Kabul and then things will be fine in Afghanistan.

The Soviet leaders told the same, but after they had stopped supporting the government of Najibullah, the Afghan civil war started.

One has only to read Clausewitz to realize that military victory does not mean much without a political victory.

BBC: In the book you often rely on the memoirs of Soviet politicians. How reasonable is this, considering that in memoirs the events are often distorted?

RB: Of course, a memoir is an unreliable source of information. But the story in general can not be completely impartial.

Even the archival documents can not be objective, as is thought by historians.

I am a former civil servant, and I know how the documents are written and why. It's not that simple.

BBC: Some of the Afghan Mujahideen claim that the world should be grateful to them, since they, when waging a struggle with the Soviet Union, caused the downfall of communism. In your opinion, are they right?

RB: This is a huge exaggeration. I do not want to belittle the achievements of the Mujahideen. But they failed to win the 40 th Army, which left Afghanistan on their own will, in an organized way.

The Soviet Union dissolved because of many, many factors. And the Afghan war is just a small factor.

It is true that the war in Afghanistan has helped to undermine the faith of ordinary Soviet people in their government. I do not know whether this is true, but Chernobyl had even more influence on public opinion.

BBC: In recent years, several films about the Afghan war were made in Russia, there was a number of publications, particularly during the celebration of the 20 anniversary of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Do you think Russia is still trying to comprehend the war?

RB: There are few good films about the Afghan war. Among those the veterans like, a really good movie is "Afghan Breakdown", filmed in 1991. Мне кажется, что он достоверно изображает войну. It seems to me that it portrays the war accurately. Veterans do not like the "Ninth company", which enjoyed success in Russia and abroad.

As for the comprehension of the war, many those who served in Afghanistan, say more and more often that when Yeltsin cancelled the supply of weapons, fuel and food to the Afghan leader Najibullah, it was a betrayal, and led to Najibullah's downfall.

BBC: During the war years of 1979-89 up to half a million civilians were killed in Afghanistan, and three million have become refugees, which is a large figure for a country with 15 million people. В популярных книгах о войне часто происходит обезличивание местного населения вражеской страны и его страданий. In the popular books about the war the local population of enemy countries and their suffering are often depersonalized. And this leads to the fact that cruelty against this faceless population becomes more acceptable. When paying attention mainly to Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan, don't you do the same?

Р.Б.: Я написал эту книгу, потому что Запад обезличил русских солдат в Афганистане. RB: I wrote this book because the West deprived of individuality the Russian soldiers in Afghanistan. And I wanted to repay it, pay attention to them and portray them as people and not as an enemy.

I did not write about the Mujahideen, because many have already written about them before me.

I hope that the reader does not have the impression that I was demonizing the Mujahideen. They were brave fighters. Yes, sometimes they showed the cruelty, as well as Russians did.

I think that in any war demonization of the enemy is inevitable.Then it is easier to get soldiers to fight.

I hope that my book makes it clear my attitude to the war - that war is horrible, but that, unfortunately, the desire to fight is an innate human trait.

I do not think the wars will ever stop, which means that we will continue to demonize the enemy. It's human nature.

Leo Tolstoy left his home 100 years ago. “War and Peace” and history

When I started reading “War and Peace” one month ago, I didn't even remember about the upcoming hundredth anniversary of Tolstoy's death. Today, I finished reading it and it happens that this is the day when one hundred years ago (28 October Old Style, 10 November New Style), Leo Tolstoy left his home together with his personal doctor Makovitsky. Tolstoy planned to escape from the annoying life in the comfortable mansion and to spend his last years in poverty and honesty. The doctor didn't quite understand Tolstoy, he thought they are going to visit some family members and didn't take enough money. Tolstoy kissed his daughter, took the suitcase and they left. They took third class railway tickets and departed to Kozelsk. A lot of people smoked in the car and Tolstoy had to go outside for fresh air. He spent about 45 minutes outside and these three quarters of an hour were crucial. Ten days later Tolstoy died of pneumonia on the railway station Astapovo. So smoking killed one of the most famous Russian writers.

Well, the story of his life and death is more or less well known and you can read his biography in almost any language. I would like to talk today about his novel “War and Peace”. Tolstoy wrote later that the novel is fiction and that it may distort history to comply with the author's intentions. Indeed, there is a large number of inconsistencies, contradictions and anachronisms in the book. Let's have a look at some of them.

Do you know how the Russian text begins? Here's the first paragraph:

— Eh bien, mon prince. Gênes et Lueques ne sont plus que des apanages, des поместья, de la famille Buonaparte. Non, je vous préviens que si vous ne me dites pas que nous avons la guerre, si vous vous permettez encore de pallier toutes les infamies, toutes les atrocités de cet Antichrist (ma parole, j'y crois) — je ne vous connais plus, vous n'êtes plus mon ami, vous n'êtes plus мой верный раб, comme vous dites

This is the original Russian text, and I mean it :) Later in the novel, Tolstoy also mentions some noble whose patriotic feelings made him learn speaking Russian. Of course, Russian aristocrats of the 19th century usually spoke very good French, but Tolstoy is wrong here. In the first decade of the century, foreign-speaking aristocrats were rare. Those who lived in Russia, had to talk to their servants (and sometimes they spoke in a folksy manner for this reason). Only those who were born in abroad, spoke some foreign language sufficiently well. And this language was hardly ever French, because after the revolution of 1789 very few Russian aristocrats visited the lawless and rebellious France, they preferred Germany. Strange enough, but French became popular in the aristocratic salons after the Napoleonic wars, when children grew up who were raised in 1790s-1800s by French tutors, who fled from the revolution to Russia.

The family of Kuragins is painted by Tolstoy in a rather strange manner. Tolstoy dislikes them and his feelings are seen even in the names of the family members. So, the name Hippolyte is outstandingly unaristocratic. This name was typical for bourgeoisie, especially Polish. The title “prince Hippolyte” must have sounded absurd in 1805. His sister's name is Helene. Her name looks French, but it wasn't used among French nobility because of its foreign, Anglo-German sound. In Russia of the early 19th century, the name associated with Russified Germans. Just as often the name may be found in the form “Länchen”, purely German (the name of the wife of Faddey Bulgarin). The brother of Hippolyte and Helene has the name Anatole. The name is neutral, but extremely rare in all countries of that time.

The novel begins in the aristocratic salon of Anna Scherer, maid of honor of the Empress. Another one of Tolstoy's errors. You see, maid of honour was not just a title. She was a maid, she could not be married. And maids absolutely could not invite guests, except for close relatives, and only during the day. So, a salon of a maid would be a flagrant violation of the public norms.

Besides, in July 1805 the guests of Anna Scherer would be out of the city, all of them. The royal family with all the courtiers would leave St. Petersburg to the summer residence. Army officers (including, for example, Dolokhov) would be in the summer camps.

Anatole Kuragin asks princess Mary for her hand in marriage, but he was only twenty years old. It was too early for him to marry. Later, he tries to run away with Natasha Rostova, even though he knows he cannot marry her (he had been married by that time). He should have known that Natasha was not a plebeian gal, she was a lady and ladies were not that defenceless. Firstly, Natasha's brothers would have demanded satisfaction. Secondly, Rostovs were a noble family and could have complained to the emperor himself, and his rage would have been quick and merciless. So, prince S. Trubetskoy was deprived of his title and property and sent to the army as a mere soldier when he tried to run away with a married lady.

Helene Kuragin wanted to divorce Pierre Bezukhov so much that she converted to catholicism, writes Tolstoy. Well, actually, she didn't have to. She could have divorced without much problems, because of the long time they lived separately. It was a legitimate reason for divorce. On the other hand, in 1812 the number of conversions to catholicism, always very small, dropped to zero. The problem was that the order of Jesuits was disbanded by the Pope in 1773 and restored only in 1814. In the meanwhile, the Jesuits found a shelter in Russia and their situation was so unstable that they would not risk losing the favor of the emperor by proselytizing.

Tolstoy writes about Prince Andrew: “After the Austerlitz campaign Prince Andrew had firmly resolved not to continue his military service, and when the war recommenced and everybody had to serve, he took a post under his father in the recruitment so as to avoid active service.” It was hardly probably, since nobody could make a Russian aristocrat to serve unless he wanted to. This freedom was granted by the 1762 Manifesto of Peter III.

When Natasha Rostova visited her uncle, she danced in typical Russian manner, says Tolstoy: “Where, how, and when had this young countess, educated by an emigree French governess, imbibed from the Russian air she breathed that spirit and obtained that manner which the pas de chale would, one would have supposed, long ago have effaced? But the spirit and the movements were those inimitable and unteachable Russian ones... She did the right thing with such precision, such complete precision, that Anisya Fedorovna, who had at once handed her the handkerchief she needed for the dance, had tears in her eyes, though she laughed as she watched this slim, graceful countess, reared in silks and velvets and so different from herself, who yet was able to understand all that was in Anisya and in Anisya's father and mother and aunt, and in every Russian man and woman.”

But Natasha spent a large part of her life in village and she had to have seen the village girls dancing and, of course, she knew the folk style of dancing.

Now, Pierre Bezukhov. When he first appeared in the book, “Anna Pavlovna greeted him with the nod she accorded to the lowest hierarchy in her drawing room”, because he was a bastard, but the bastards were not treated this way even in the highest society. So, another bastard, N. Novosiltsev, the base son of the sister of the Count Stroganov, was one of the “young friends” of the emperor Alexander.

In the age of ten, Pierre left Russia and spent another ten years abroad, and yet, unlike Hippolyte Kuragin, he speaks Russian very well.

Pierre's ties with the freemasons do not look very trustworthy. By that time the old-fashioned rituals of freemasons were already looked upon sarcastically, their Golden Age was in mid-18th century.

The funny thing with all these (and many other) anachronisms is that even when you are aware of them, the novel remains a masterpiece. You understand the characters better, the storyline becomes straight and clear. After all, Tolstoy is still a great writer, even though his Russian style looks so awkward that many Russian readers turn to hatred. So, one of very good science fiction writers, Svyatoslav Loginov, agnrily criticizes “War and Peace” for the last fifty pages, where Tolstoy explain his philosophy of history. I agree, these final pages are unbearable (and I never read them to the end). And yet, the book is great. The battle scenes are overwhelming, the plot is absorbing, the characters are vivid and the language is unmistakably Tolstoyesque: awkward but precise.

If you ask me, the best character in the book is Kutuzov, the master of zen war, who defeated Napoleon by escaping him. Oh, and the best reason to love “War and Peace” is not in the book. She is in the movie, and you know her name: Audrey Hepburn :).

This post is heavily based on the information borrowed from the article “Historical Context in Fiction: Aristocratic Society in the Novel ‘War and Peace’” by Ye. Tsimbayeva, published in the magazine «Вопросы литературы» 2004, №5. The full text is available here: “Исторический контекст в художественном образе (Дворянское общество в романе «Война и мир»)”

Report of Russian secret police on moral and political state in the country. 150 years ago, sorry

Since 1827, The Third Section of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery produced special reports for the tsar, describing the moral and political situation in the Russian society. Four years ago, a large share of these reports was published by the Russian State Archive. Below are some short excerpts from the report summarizing the events of 1860, 150 years ago. Five years had passed since the coronation of Alexander II and only one year remained till the most important act of liberalism in Russia in 19th century (the last three words were, probably, not necessary).

Moral and political review of 1860

On revolutionary projects

For thirty years already, the aggregations of political emigrants in England, France, Belgium and Switzerland have constituted the source of all destructive projects in Europe. The revolutionary propaganda was led by Joseph Mazzini, the tireless advocate of the Italian freedom and the universal republic, in which this dreamer sees the future of the humanity...

The bombs, thrown in 1858 in Paris by Orsini, have proven the extreme danger of the ideas of the emancipation of Italy for the French throne...

Politicians see in the preparations for the popular resistance certain signs of the upcoming merge of the Italian question with the Hungarian, Polish and the Eastern questions. The future may confirm this guess, but it is already clearly seen that the tools chosen for these plans prove their revolutionary and democratic nature.

On Polish expatriates

The Polish emigrants include the expatriates of 1832 and 1848. The former, due to their number and influence, are more important than the latter, who mostly left Poland in young age, because of their inclination to life of leisure, without strict political principles...

According to the directions given in the speech [by Adam Czartoryski], instructions were sent to the Poles in the Tsardom to do nothing till the liberation of peasants [...] but that they should make the Polish peasants believe that the Polish aristocrats forced the Tsar to liberate them.

In the meanwhile, the hopes of the Polish emigrants in Paris and in London are based on the events being prepared in Hungary. They plan that either the rebellion in Hungary in which Poles would participate may become useful for their own rebellion, or that the Hungary, reformed by Austria, will provide them with the moral grounds to demand the reformation of Poland.

On Russian expatriates

In 1860, the number of Russians who left their Fatherland and explicitly joined the opposition, has grown. Some of the most important of them are: 1) Prince Peter Dolgorukov, the author of the book titled "La Verite sur la Russie". Having published the book in Paris, he departed to London, making acquaintance with Herzen and Ogarev. As far as we know, his book was recognized abroad as malicious vilification of the all Russian state and the ruling Dynasty and damaged his reputation among people of reason...

2) Prince Yuri Golitsyn, who fled from Russia due to the being justly punished for the improper correspondence withe Herzen. Because of his narrow-mindedness, he could not succeed in literature and has to earn his living by giving concerts in London and other cities...

3) Someone Kisleyev or Kisteltsev, young man in the age of 28, who calls himself doctor of medicine, while others think he is a clergyman... On 17 [29] November, on the day of anniversary of Polish revolution, Kisleyev was present on the meeting and spoke in favor of revolution.

4) Hierodeacon Agapy, who broke with the archimandrite and fled to London.

All mentioned above have joined the circle of Herzen and Ogarev, who continue their maleficent publications. According to secret information, there are other Russian citizens who did not proclaim their animosity towards the legitimate government but do participate in revolutionary projects. So, it is known that two Russians, retired officer Dietmars and retired state official Mechnikov, fought in the army of Garibaldi.

Poznan

The constitutional rights of the Great Duchy of Poznan give their citizens right to advocate patriotic feelings in public, while promoting hatred to all things German... The government views it forbearingly, as if being afraid of decisive measures. While the Poznan Poles made no rebellious actions in this year, they took every opportunity to prepare the population for such rebellions. Their main weapon in this year was the accusation of police by deputy Niegolewski (probably, Władysław Niegolewski. DM), who suggested that the police was responsible for the sending of fake proclamations, putting Poles on political actions... On the other hand, the demands to allow usage of Polish language in courts never stopped. There were occasions when the prisoners refused to reply in German, pretending they do not understand.

Galicia

The patriotic sentiments were strongest among university students in Krakow, who demanded the lectures in Polish to be allowed by sending the deputy to Vienna, who beat the education inspector who tried to keep them inside the university to prevent demonstrations, who sang the songs from the 1830 rebellion during morning walks and often met in on of the city caffees. An anonymous letter was received, reporting that the students formed a secret society during these meetings. Investigations are underway. Among the people involved in the society, the most important seems to be the retired lieutenant of the Russian army Narcyz Jankowski (Link in Polish. DM) who was mentioned in the letter. In September, Jankowski was arrested on the border and delivered to Krakow.

Lieutenant Jankowski, son of a landlord from Kiev region, retired in 1857. For 3 years he lived in Warsaw, making acquaintances and hosting meetings with public book readings. During the arrest, Jankowski managed to destroy some papers. Among the papers found in his apartment were draft program of a Polish democratic committee in Paris, instruction to the secret societies to begin armed rebellion all over Poland and a note saying that 100 brochures of "Przeglad rzeczy polskich" were given to him to deliver to Warsaw

...

In December, a Polish review printed in Paris (Przeglad rzeczy polskich) published and article, where the author mentions the May demonstration in Krakow university and states that the Polish autonomy will be attained by the youth, and offers the younger readers to deepen their patriotic feelings, even though they have already been reproved by many older Polish authoritative thinkers.

Emissaries

The governor of the Polish Kingdom has reported that the Poznan police informed him of the arrival of a Polish emissary Lisecki to the Great Duchy of Poznan. He distributed inciting brochures and pretended he was sent by Miroslawski to investigate the chances of beginning a mutiny in Poznan or in Poland... From a letter sent on February 14 from Paris, it is known that the real name of Lisecki, a.k.a. Gnatowski, was Arthur Trok.

The Polish Kingdom

According to the news from the Kingdom, the Poles there sympathize the events in Sicily and Naples, the national movement in Hungary and Galicia, but remain calm, while awaiting for advantageous changes in the politics. In the meanwhile, they chose to assist the growth of the nation: enhancing the morality of the lower classes by fighting alcoholism and by attracting them to the churches; establishment of municipal banks to liberate the agriculture, especially from the destructive influence of the Jews and to enhance the arable farming. The primary instrument for this was the Farming society, established in 1859, which has grown immensely and established contacts with similar societies in Poznan and Galicia. Very soon the Farmin society started showin signs of maleficent for the monarchy political influence in the Polish Kingdom. So, it deemed necessary to close the provincial departments of the society, preserving the central department in Warsaw. This measure, though, produced dissatisfaction among Poles.

Western districts

(This chapter also described the unrest among Poles in other regions of Russia, including Vilno (modern Vilnius) and Kiev. DM).

Finland

In Finland, a secret society was formed of the people, who write for Swedish newspapers articles hostile to Russia, trying to incite Finns against her rule, especially the younger Finns, among whom destructive ideas were found in the Helsingfors University. These feelings were noted by Swedish politicians who find them useful for their goals. In the end of 1859 Dahlfeld was appointed the Swedish consul in Helsingfors. He made acquaintances among lesser writers, who are his instrument to spread ideas hostile to Russia. British and American consuls cooperated.

On state reforms

In 1860, just like in the previous three years, the most important matter of the Russian politics was the liberation of landlord-owned peasants from serfdom. It was expected that the question will be solved by the end of 1860, but in spite of the efforts of the government, it was impossible... Nobody, though, could underestimate the high moral and political goal represented by the liberation. The full freedom in the discussion, allowed by Your Majesty, helped the detailed investigation of all possibilities. Measures were taken to mitigate unrest when the decrees of Your Majesty were being published, and the measures gave positive results.

In the Baltic regions, where the aristocracy has exclusive rights to own the land they were afraid that their privileges may be violated during the liberation of peasants and that the peasants will have equal rights during the elections.

A part of peasants in the Baltic regions (mostly in Lifland and Estland) expressed their desire to move to new lands in Samara region. In spite of the resistance of some landlords, 400 peasants have moved.

In Crimea, a large number of Crimean Tatars have moved to Turkey this year. This resettlement threatens the landowners of the Crimean peninsula who might not have enough workers to continue cultivating their land. The aristocrats of Crimea gathered in Simpheropol to discuss possible replacement for the lost workforce and the introduction of new machines.

Together with the government's intentions to alleviate the life of peasants, certain private efforts took place in 1860. Mostly, by establishment of sunday schools and temperance associations.

Unnaturally fast growth of temperance associations in 1859 was explained by the rage of the lower classes against liquor stores owners. As soon as measures were taken to prevent violent actions, the growth stopped.

Sunday schools are getting extremely popular and the local education authorities are instructed to pay special attention to prevent dissemination of harmful teachings.

On administration

All credit institutions have been merged in one State Bank. It is too soon to make any conclusion on the effect of this measure, but the first impression of the merchants was that the activity of the new bank is limited by the responsibility and insufficient capital.

On the internal political state of the Empire

To conclude the report, we have to note that the spirit of the people of the Empire strives for the growth of the civil rights on modern liberal ground. These views are expressed in magazines, where, in spite of the efforts of the censorship, very often too liberal and even dangerous views are found. The liberal journalism incites the intellectual ferment and helps the illegally imported revolutionary magazines, directed against the existing state and monarchy. What is true for other countries, should be true for Russia: the unrestrained freedom of press is the greatest danger for the existing state, but the press can also be the best instrument in the hands of the government.

Besides the love towards liberal establishments, the dreams of restoration of independency of separate nations have also made their way into Russia. These dreams are insecure for the multinational Russian Empire. They can be observed not only in the Western districts, but also in Little Russia and Finland. The modern politics of the West gives more grounds to these dreams, especially to those of Poles, whose loyalty even earlier was doubtful.

Adjutant-general Dolgorukov

March 22, 1861

130th birthday of Alexander Railway Bridge

The Alexander Railway Bridge was opened on August 30, 1880. In the end of 19th centuryBy that time, it was the longest bridge in Europe, 1436 meters. It was also the last large bridge in Russia built from imported iron. Newspapers compared it to the Suez channel. The importance of the bridge was that it was the point of connection of the railroads from Moscow and Western Russia and the railroads of Urals and Siberia, including the Trans-Siberian Railway.

In 1918, two spans were exploded by retiring troops. After the revolution the bridge was renamed to Syzran Bridge, after a nearby city.

I cross Volga along this bridge every year and, I have to admit, every time I feel a bit scared: it's so long and thin and you see the running water below :)

Here you can find some old photographs of the Alexander Bridge: Gallery of Syzran. In 2004, the bridge was reconstructed and now it looks differently: Bridge reconstruction. And I like this photo.

Protests of African students in Moscow, 1963

On December 18, 2007, I wrote about the march organized by African students in Moscow in 1963 as a protest against the murder of a student from Ghana. One of our readers, Mark Thorpe, wrote to me saying that he had found an old issue of Green Bay Press-Gazette (Wednesday evening, Decenber 18, 1963, number 172, published in Green Bay, WI) with an article about these events. Mark has kindly scanned and sent this article to me, and now you can read it below.

African Students Storm Kremlin in Racial Riot

Med Student’s Knifing Death Causes Protest

by Preston Grover MOSCOW (AP) — Several hundred students from Ghana and other African nations stormed into Red Square today right under Premier Khrushchev’s office windows, fought with police and tried to break into the Kremlin. The students said they were protesting the fatal stabbing of a student from Ghana by a Russian last Friday. The Africans broke past barricades into Red Square, where Russians march on May Day and on the anniversary of the October Revolution. But the scene was more reminiscent of the wild days of the revolution in 1917.

‘Moscow Like Alabama’

The students bore a sign showing a knife plunged into the head of an African. Another sigh declared: “Friend today, the devil tomorrow.” “Moscow is a second Alabama,” shouted one student. The students fought police all the way to the Red Square from the Ghanian Embassy a mile away where they first gathered. They stormed over a barricade of Soviet trucks at the entrance to Red Square, fighting police on top of the trucks and underneath. The big gates of Spasky Tower, the main entrance from the Kremlin into Red Square, banged shut as students rolled over police opposition and tried to get into the Kremlin.

Past Khrushchev’s Office

They stormed past the office of Khrushchev. They were separated from his office by the big red brick wall of the Kremlin. Whether he was inside his office was not known. Inside the Kremlin, the Soviet Parliament was meeting, discussing the new budget. Police apparently at no time used their guns to control the students. Instead they wheeled out loudspeakers appealing for them to go home. “Red Square is closed,” one of the sound trucks blared out. But the students payed no attention. Shortly after 2 p.m., crowds of shoppers who had swarmed into the square were ordered out along with foreign correspondents.

Riot Attracts Curious

People continued to pile into adjoining streets, never having seen an angry demonstration of foreigners against Russians. The students remained in the square for a time and were reinforced later by some 200 more who came, apparently carrying a message of protest. They made their way to Spasky Gate, where a Kremlin official came out and said a delegation of 10 would be received by the Ministry of Higher Education. A group of the demonstrators then headed for the ministry with their petition of complaint. By 3 p.m., Red Square had been cleared. The barricades were withdrawn and the demonstration was over. It was the first such demonstration by foreign students here directed at the Russians. Ghanian students demonstrated last February in Communist Bulgaria, claiming racial persecution.

Medical Student Killed

Thousands of African students are studying in Communist schools, many of them with all expenses paid. The dead man was identified as Asare Addo, who was studying medicine at Kalinin 100 miles northwest of Moscow. He was said to have been killed Friday. Some students said Soviet officials issued a statement blaming the death on natural causes, but the Africans disputed this. Emerging from a conference in the Kremlin, some of the students said Education Minister Vyacheslav Yelutin denied that the student, Asare Addo, was stabbed. They said Yelutin told them Addo was drunk, had fallen down in the street, and died of cold. The minister told a full investigation had been ordered. Several students who were at the conference told reporters they did not believe this report. They said they were informed that Addo wanted to marry a Russian girl and was killed by a Russian man who was opposed to the marriage. Students said they prepared for today’s demonstration by sending telegrams to Ghanian students in Odessa, Kharkov and other university towns, asking them to come to Moscow. Each was given a red head band, a sign of mourning in Ghana. At the outset, the protest was orderly. When it became apparent that the students planned to carry their protest through the streets, police reinforcements were rushed in. Some rocked a police car, threatening to overturn it. Others forced their way between and under the trucks blocking the entrance of Red Square.

March 11 in Russian history. Armed neutrality. Barsov's grammar

1780

(28 February Old Style)

In 1775, when British colonies in America began their war for independence, France and Spain supported the separatists and Great Britain had to look for allies. In June 1775, King George III asked Russian empress Catherine the Great to send troops to America to suppress the rebellion. For Russia, free trade was way more important than the alliance with the old rival, who attempted to blockade Spanish and French ports. American privateers also interfered with Russian-English sea trade, but the losses they caused were tiny compared with the consequences of the British blockade. Catherine II refused to join the war against American separatists. Instead, in 1780, she launched an international campaign for free maritime trade. From Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy:

[Empress Catherine II of Russia] under pressure from Great Britain on the one hand to enter an alliance and from the northern powers on the other to help protect their neutrality, found her own shipping becoming more subject to interference from the belligerents. The result was the declaration of 1780, identifying the principles by which Catherine proposed to act and the means—commissioning a substantial portion of her fleet to go "wherever honour, interest, and necessity compelled"—by which she proposed to enforce those principles. Broadly, these principles were that neutral shipping might navigate freely from port to port and on the coasts of nations at war; that the property of subjects of belligerent states on neutral ships should be free except when it was classed as contraband within the meaning of the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1766; and that a port was assumed to be blockaded only when the attacking power had rendered its ships stationary and made entry a clear danger.

(read more)

More about the League of Armed Neutrality from the POV of Russian history in The History of Russian Navy:

Although the Declaration was enforced for only three years, it was, nonetheless, an original doctrine of major significance. It contributed to the understanding among nations of the inviolability of peaceful merchant vessels, their right to be free from the threat of piracy and harassment, and that wanton disregard of such rights would not be tolerated by Russia and its allies. Enforcement of the Declaration by the Russian Navy confirmed that a powerful naval fleet commanded international respect and that Russia had become a maritime power that was able to support its policies and punish offenders. In effect, the Declaration of Armed Neutrality served to elevate the reputation of the Russian Navy. The Baltic Fleet gradually strengthened. As early as 1777 Admiral Greig had suggested a new table of ship's proportions and the refurbishing of ship armaments. The 54-gun vessels vanished from use, replaced by more powerful ones; 66- and 74-gun vessels with larger-calibre cannon became the base of the fleet. The strength of the Baltic Fleet was additionally reinforced by eight 100-gun, three-decked ships of the line, the first of which was the handsome Rostislav. In the year 1784 the Rostislav's dimensions were impressive-55 metres in length and a displacement of 3,500 tons. The next ships to be built were the Saratov, the Three Saints and the Saint Ioann Chrestitel, which proved their worth against the best-equipped vessels in the British and Swedish fleets.

In 1761 the weaponry of the Russian fleet was updated. More powerful shell-firing guns were installed on the lower decks, and in 1788 effective short-range cannon (carronades) were placed on the quarterdeck and forecastle of larger vessels. New copper sheathing protected ships' hulls and increased their speed. The fleet was regularly provided with officers from the Naval Cadet Corps (Naval Academy), which graduated a hundred such officers annually.

Inasmuch as war against Sweden loomed on the horizon, Russia was well-advised to refurbish its Baltic Fleet. The Swedes were hesitant to concede their dominant position in the Baltic to Russia. Friedrick Chapman, considered one of the foremost shipwrights of his day, was commissioned by Sweden to build 64-gun ships of the line and 40-gun frigates with heavy 24- and 36-pound artillery on the lower-deck batteries. In addition, the Swedish rowing fleet was reinforced by well-armed smaller vessels-hemmems, turums, udems and light, maneuverable gun-boats. The King of Sweden, Gustav III, awaited an excuse to begin hostilities against Russia.

Encyclopedia of Russian History adds an interesting conclusion to the article about the League of Armed Neutrality:

The league was remembered in the United States, somewhat erroneously, as a mark of Russian friendship and sympathy, and bolstered Anglophobia in the two countries. More generally, it affirmed a cardinal principle of maritime law that continues in effect in the early twenty-first century. Indirectly, it also led to a considerable expansion of Russian-American trade from the 1780s through the first half of the nineteenth century.

1783

The Commission of Peoples Schools entrusted Anton Barsov, professor of the Moscow University, with the task of writing a course of Russian grammar.

Among earlier works of Barsov were a chronology of Russian history, "Collection of 4291 Ancient Russian proverb", translations of French, Greek and Latin works on politics and philology, including "Cellarii Orthographia Latina", a method of Russia stenography "De Brachygraphia" and other works. He participated in the writing of the dictionary of Russian language. He finished work on the first volume of the dictionary when the new job made him to send all materials he had collected for the dictionary to the Academy and concentrate on the grammar course.

He was writing the course since 1783 till 1788, but the Commission of Peoples Schools decided not to publish it. It was lost and we can only use incomplete copies. Members of the Commission concluded that the course was overloaded with details and unsuitable for schools. Another possible cause was, probably, Barsov's ideas about the reform of the orthography. Some of those proposals were implemented in the 20th century, during the 1918 reform. So, he proposed to eliminate the hard sign "ъ" at the ultimate position after consonants, to exclude redundant letters "θ" and "И", in favor of their duplicates "Ф" and "I", correspondingly, and to replace "ъ" with an apostroph or the soft sign "ь" in the middle of words. He also offered to introduce a new ligature, "io", to denote the sound for which Karamzin later invented a new letter "ё", which is stil used in Russian alphabet.

His grammar was not published at that time, but now it is still in print, both in Russian and in English. Moreover, you can download the full text in Russian (1981 edition) as a PDF file for free (23.2Mb).

From the preface to The Comprehensive Russian Grammar of A.A.Barsov by Lawrence W. Newman:

This volume contains the first publication of the Comprehensive Russian Grammar of Anton Barsov (1730-1791). Written between 1783 and 1788 for use in schools, it would have needed to be shortened and simplified to fulfill its original purpose. Its publication helps fill an important lacuna in the history of the Russian grammatical tradition, as well as providing new information about eighteenth-century Russian. Barsov was professor of rhetoric at Moscow University for thirty years, including the period when he was writing the grammar. The influence of his university work was apparently great, to judge, for example, from Karamzin's testimony (cited here from V.V. Vinogradov, Iz istorii izučenija russkogo sintaksisa, Moscow: Moscow University, 1958, page 49): if, says Karamzin, he "knows how sometimes to pause over a word, how to be cautious, then he owes this advantage to this one extremely learned man." It is likely that the grammar, or at least lectures from which it was derived, was not completely lost, but played a minor role in the education of a generation of Russian intellectuals.

March 10 in Russian history. Stoletov's research of photoelectric effect

1888

(26 February Old Style)

The experiment set by Alexander Stoletov is finally successful. The photoelectric effect was first observed in 1839 by Becquerel, but its discovery is usually attributed to Heinrich Hertz. Stoletov, though, was the first who deduced the laws and patterns of this effect.

Here's a little biography of Stoletov taken from Russia-InfoCentre:

Born: August 10, 1839

Deceased: May 27, 1896

Eminent Russian physicist, Alexander Stoletov, was born to the family of a merchant in 1839. Alexander’s father owned a grocery shop and his mother, a well-educated woman, did her best to teach her children Russian language and arithmetic before they started attending a secondary school. Alexander was four when he learned to read and he spent days reading, since his health wasn’t very good.

In 1849 Alexander entered the gymnasium in Vladimir. He graduated it seven years after with a diploma of honours and gold medal for outstanding achievements in learning. Same year Alexander Stoletov was enrolled to the faculty of physics and mathematics of Moscow State University and received educational scholarship from the state.

In 1860 Alexander finished the university and passed master’s examination. However, master thesis defense had to be postponed, because Alexander Stoletov went to Europe for new knowledge. He spent three years in Berlin, Heidelberg and Gottingen, studying physics, and fascinated physicists with his talent. (He studied at Gustav Kirchhoff, who called Stoletov "his most gifted student" DM)

First scientific research Alexander Stoletov performed abroad. Young scientist found out that dielectric properties of water had no effect on electromagnetic interaction of conductors. In 1865 Stoletov returned to Russia and soon got a position of a teacher of mathematical physics and physical geography in Moscow State University. Physicist read brilliant lectures and prepared his master thesis, "The General Problem of Electrostatics and Its Reduction to the Simplest Form". Young scientist solved this problem and defended his master thesis in 1869. Following years were spent in effort to create his own physical laboratory – Moscow State University had no experimental facilities, and scientists had to go abroad to perform research. In 1871 Alexander Stoletov started working on his doctor dissertation and studied magnetic properties of iron. Creating a theory of how electric machines worked was an important task, since there was no such science as “electro-techniques”. Stoletov again went to Germany, where he discovered some important patterns in the magnetism of iron.

In 1872 Alexander Stoletov successfully defended his doctor dissertation, and the following year brought him a position of professor in Moscow University. Same year his physical laboratory finally opened – Russian scientists didn’t need to go abroad to perform experiments anymore. The physicist read popular lectures, wrote popular scientific papers and supervised a physical society. After defense of doctor dissertation Alexander Stoletov became a world-known scientist – he visited opening ceremony of physical laboratory in Cambridge in 1874, and represented Russian science at I World Congress of Electricity in Paris in 1881, where he reported on proportion factors between electrostatic and electromagnetic units of measure. Stoletov suggested using Ohm for electric resistance. In 1888 Alexander Stoletov started studies of photo effect, which was discovered by Hertz the year before. Elegant experiments resulted in a discovery of the law linking critical pressure, electromotive force of a battery and distance between the electrode and the net. Later this constant was named after him.

In 1893, three Academy members recommended Stoletov for becoming a member of the Academy of Sciences. However, the President of the Academy, Great Prince Konstantin, refused to sign necessary papers explaining himself with the “unbearable temper of Alexander Stoletov”. Such decision was a hard blow for the physicist, and many scientists sympathized with him due to that unfair situation. Health of the great scientist was weak since his early childhood, and in May 1896 Alexander Stoletov died of pneumonia.

Some other important works of Stoletov include:

• On the Kohlrausch's measurement of the mercury unit of electric resistance;
• Sur une méthode pour déterminer le rapport des unités électromagnétiques et électrostatiques;
• On the electricity of juxtaposition;
• On the critical state of bodies (4 articles);
• Actino-electric research;
• Ether and electricity;
• Essay on the development of our knowledge of gases;
• Introduction into acoustics and optics.

Some Stoletov's achievements:

• Stoletov was the first to show that with the increase of the magnetic field the magnetic susceptibility of iron grows, but then begins to decrease.
• He built the curve of the magnetic permeability of ferromagnetics, known as the Stoletov's curve.
• Developed two new methods of measurement of magnetic properties of various materials.
• He calculated the the proportion between electrodynamic and electrostatic units, producing a value very close to the speed of light.
• Studied the outer photoelectric effect, discovered by Hertz.
• Built the first solar cell based on the outer photoelectric effect and estimated the response time of the photoelectric current.
• Discovered the direct proportionality of the intensity of light and the current caused by it (Stoletov's law)
• Discovered the decrease of the solar cell's sensitivity with time (fatigue of solar cells).
• Developed quantitative methods of the study of the photoelectric effect.
• Discovered the Stoletov's constant (defines the ratio between the intensity of the electric current and the gas pressure under the maximum current).

Two dates from space age

Today, Yuri Gagarin would be 75...

And two days ago Dmitry Kozlov, the designer of the carrier Vostok, that took Gagarin into space, has died in Samara.

Dmitry Ilyich Kozlov was born in 1919. In 1937 he entered the Leningrad military mechanical university. In 1941 he volunteered to join the Soviet army and fought near Leningrad. When in winter truck convoys began crossing the frozen Ladoga lake to bring food to the blockaded city, Kozlov was to guard one of the first trucks. Because of the wind he lost his cap, he jumped out of the car, and when he found it, the truck was hit by German shells and went under the ice. Kozlov survived, and in 1944 he was discharged after the explosion of a Finnish mine tore away his left hand.

in 1946 he was sent to Germany to research the remains of German V-2 missiles. Upon his return he was appointed the chief of the 3rd department of the NII-88 (scientific research institute 88), and began designing intercontinental ballistic missiles. He worked together with Sergey Korolyov, the demi-god of the Soviet space program. Korolyov developed the ballistic missile code-named R-7 and in 1958, when a new missile factory was started in Kuibyshev (Samara), Kozlov became the chief designer. "Only a beautiful rocket is a good rocket", he used to say. R-7 was the rocket that made the plans of mass strikes on the USSR, like Operation Dropshot or Plan Totality, totally useless.

The R-7 began its life as an ICBM, but it had a huge potential and most Soviet space carriers, including Vostok, Voskhod, Molniya and Soyuz (which means also the Chines Shenzhou) were heavily based on this Korolyov's project. Since 1964 the factory led by Kozlov became the leading organization of the Soviet space industry.

The same factory, now known as TsSKB-Progress (literally Central Specialized Design Bureau), designed and built a huge number of Soviet satellites, military and intelligence, and civil Fram, Resurs-F1, Resurs-F2, Bion and Yantar. Yantar was able to produce the images of extremely high quality, and for some years NASA purchased the films made by Yantar from the USSR. A commercial modification Resurs-DK was named after Dmitry Kozlov.

Actually, not a single company in the world can compete with TsSKB-Progress. 1740 successful launches. More than 870 successful re-entries and langings.

In 2005, Kozlov was awarded with the Gold Space Medal by FAI (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale):

Mr Dmitry I. Kozlov - Designer General of the State Research and Production Space Rocket Centre TsSKB "Progress", was a close colleague of Sergei P. Korolev. In the late 1950s, he played a decisive role in establishing the Central Specialized Design Bureau, one of the leading developers of space rocket technology, which under his supervision produced eight types of space systems, including "Soyuz-FG", "Molniya-M", "Soyuz-U", "Soyuz-2", in addition to many types of unmanned spacecraft for various purposes. Mr Dmitry I. Kozlov paved the way for international cooperation in space exploration, having produced highly reliable manned and unmanned spacecraft ("Soyuz" and "Progress"), thus ensuring the operation of the International Space Station. For his great contribution to the design, production and operation of many types of unmanned and manned spacecraft, and for the organization and development of fruitful international cooperation in space exploration, Mr Dmitry I. Kozlov is a deserving recipient of the FAI Gold Space Medal for 2005.

March 6 in Russian history. Without Stalin? Hurrah!

1953

Changes in the Soviet government. G. Malenkov became the prime-minister. K. Voroshilov was appointed the chairman of Supreme Soviet. L. Beriya, whose name would be remembered for a very long time since then, became the minister of home affairs. This decision was taken one day before, forty minutes before Stalin's death.

Death of almost every dictator causes problems. With Stalin, it was a special case. For thirty years, he was the man who held in his hands the life of every Soviet citizen. Children grew up who were taught that Stalin is the pillar of the freedom of the working class all over the world, that he, with his godlike intelligence, foresees all problems and that using and developing the only true teaching of Marx and Lenin he steers forward, to the victory of communism in all the world. And so on, so on, so on.

On the other hand, they knew of the Black Marias that came at night. Many of them knew people who were sent to Gulag. But in spite of this, what they felt when they learned of the death of Stalin was not pure happiness.

I remember the death of Brezhnev, who ruled the USSR for less than twenty years. I grew up with him. He was always somewhere around: on TV, in newspapers, on radio. My feelings were mixed. I hoped for something new, for changes, but I was scared. I'm absolultely sure that the same sentiments prevailed among the Soviet people fifty six years ago.

Some of them expressed these feelings openly. The whistleblowers had a lot of work then. Below are some stories taken from their denunciations.

Unemployed F.Kosaurihin from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, being drunk, said that it was Zhukov, not Stalin, who won the war. He swore at Stalin and scanned anti-Sovet verses, while standing at a liquor store.

G.Briakhne, a carpenter from Tiraspol, came at work on 6 March singing a song. When the workers told him it was a day of mourning and he should not sing, he cursed and said that another chief will come to the place of the old one.

V.Lutsevich, a woman from Ashkhabad region, being drunk, said about Stalin's death that "it serves him right".

V.Sokolova, an old school teacher from Gorky region, retold the programs of Voice of America to other teachers, saying that Stalin was poisoned by his doctor. Besides, she was accused of "distorting the Soviet reality", when she said during a lesson in March 1952 that in 1928, during the construction of the paper mill, tools and engineers were brought from America.

S.Vasilyev, a railroad worker from Murmansk region, when he learned of Stalin's death, came to the foreman and said: "The chief has died. Now, we'll be free, and the kolkhozes will be disbanded and the land will be given to the peasants". On the 9 March, during the Stalin's funerals, he would joke with the girls standing nearby.

A.Ivanov, movie technician from Charjou in Turkmenista, being drunk, cried "For Stalin's death, hurrah!" during a show, when Stalin's face appeared on screen.

Prisoner B.Ustin said to the workers who were fastening Stalin's portrait on a wall on 6 March: "What the %^&$ you are hanging here..." Earlier, in 1952, he said that Stalin stole Lenin's works, that the country is not managed properly, that we need a war which was not finished in 1945 because of Stalin, that we have to finish with America, so our children would live in peace.

G.Nastasyuk, a kolkhoz worker from Moldavia, said on 6 March: "It would be great if not only Stalin, but all communists died in three days. Than there would be no kolkhozes". Earlier, he was reported to say that the kolkhoz workers are paupers, that in spring there'll be a war with America and the Soviet power will fall.

I don't know what happened to these people, but there's one more story. 18-years old Larisa Ogorinskaya, a schoolgirl from Lvov in Ukraine, during the mourning meeting said: "He deserved it!". She was beaten by her schoolmates, Gukov and Gladkih, right on spot. Later, for this note she was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Fortunately, very soon, on 17 June 1953, she was rehabilitated.

Boris Basov, medical worker from Kranoyarsk, being drunk, said in a pub: "Let him die, tens of other people can take his place". When someone else said: "These people won't be like him. Millions will mourn him", Basov replied: "Millions will celebrate his death!" He was detained and brought to police. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but in April the sentence was changed to five years. Quite soon he was rehabilitated.

A little more on the 1991 referendum on preservation of the USSR

On 25 December I wrote about the 1991 referendum on the preservation of the Soviet Union, where 76.43% of all citizens chose to keep the Union "as a modernized federation of equal sovereign republics, where the rights and freedoms of the people of all nationalities would be guaranteed". Some days ago one of the readers asked me what was the breakup by republics. I tried to post the table in the comments, but it turns out that Blogger.com does not support tables in comments, so I post it as a separate article.

Strangely enough, I couldn't find the referendum results in English. The table below was taken from here. It includes the republics of the USSR and autonomous republics.

	Number of registered electors		Participated in the referendum		Votes "Yes"		Votes "No"		Invalid votes
				%		%		%		%
	1		2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Russia	105.643.364		79.701.169	75,4	56.860.783	71,3	21.030.753	26,4	1.809.633	2,3
Ukraine	37.732.178		31.514.244	83,5	22.110.899	70,2	8.820.089	28,0	583.256	1,8
Byelorussia	7.354.796		6.126.983	83,3	5.069.313	82,7	986.079	16,1	71.591	1,2
Uzbekistan	10.278.938		9.816.333	95,4	9.196.848	93,7	511.373	5,2	108.112.	1,1
Kazakhstan	9.999.433		8.816.543	88,2	8.295.519	94,1	436.560	5,0	84.464	0,9
Azerbaijan	3.866.659		2.903.797	75,1	2.709.246	93,3	169.225	5,8	25.326	0,9
Kyrgyzstan	2.341646		2.174.593	92,9	2.057.971	96,4	86.245	4,0	30.377	1,4
Tajikistan	2.549.096		2.407.552	94,4	2.315.755	96,2	75.300	3,1	16.497	0,7
Turkmenistan	1.847.310		1.804.138	97,7	1.766.584	97,9	31.203	1,7	6.351	0,4
Bashkiria	2.719.637		2.221.158	81,7	1.908.875	85,9	269.007	12,1	43.276	2,0
Buryatia	668.231		535.802	80,2	447.438	83,5	78.167	14,6	10.197	1,9
Dagestan	1.008.626		812.009	80,5	670.488	82,6	131.522	16,2	9.999	1,2
Kabardino-Balkaria		489.436	372.607	76,1	290.380	77,9	77.339	20,8	4.888	1,3
Kalmykia	204.301		169.124	82,8	148.462	87,8	17.833	10,5	2.829	1,7
Karelia	551644		418.101	75,8	317.854	76,0	92.703	22,2	7.544	1,8
Komi	797.049		543.403	68,2	412.842	76,0	119.678	22,0	10.883	2,0
Mari El	525.685		418.599	79,6	333.319	79,6	77.239	18,5	8.041	1,9
Mordovia	677.706		571.631	84,3	459.021	80,3	101.886	17,8	10,724	1,9
North Ossetia	428.307		367.858	85,9	331.823	90,2	32.786	8,9	3.249	0,9
Tatarstan	2.532.383		1.951.768	77,1	1.708.193	87,5	211.516	10,8	32.059	1,7
Tuva	171.731		138.496	80,6	126.598	91,4	9.404	6,8	2.494	1,8
Udmurtia	1.103.083		819.140	74,3	622.714	76,0	180.289	22,0	16.137	2,0
Chechnya and Ingushetia	712.139		419.012	58,8	318.059	75,9	94.737	22,6	6.216	1,5
Chuvashia	900.913		748.420	81,3	616.387	82,4	113.249	15,1	18.784	2,5
Yakutia	688.679		541.993	78.7	415.712	76,7	116.798	21,6	9.483	1,8
Karakalpak	584.208		577.717	98.9	563.916	97,6	10.133	1,8	3.668	0,6
Abkhazia	318.317		166.544	52,3	164.231	98,6	1.566	0,9	747	0,5
Nakhichevan	174.364		35.866	20,6	31.328	87,3	3.620	10,1	918	2,6
The governments of Baltic republics, Georgia, Moldova and Armenia boycotted the referendum, the central election committees were not created. A number of local election committees were formed, though, and some people participated in the referendum. The results are below (excluding the results from Soviet military bases):
	1		2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Georgia	45.696		44.012	96,3	43.950	99,9	9	-	53	0,1
Lithuania	582.262		501.375	86,1	496.050	98,9	4.355	0,9	970	0,2
Moldova	841.507		700.893	83,3	688.905	98,3	8.916	1,3	3.072	0,4
Latvia	670.828		436.783	65,1	415.147	95,1	18.015	4,1	3,621	0,8
Armenia	4.923		3.549	72,1	2.549	71,6	966	27,2	42	1,2
Estonia	299.681		222.240	74.2	211.090	95,0	10.040	4,5	1.110	0,5
Ajaria
Military detachments located in boycotting republics
	1.261.721		1.233.858	97,8	1.107.980	89.8	113.283	9,2	12.595	1,0

An even more detailed breakup by regions of Russia can be found here: Russia. March Referendum 1991.