Problems of Soviet Nation-State Building: A Critical Historical Analysis of Armenia

Introduction. Throughout the shaping of the Soviets, the Armenian nation passed its historical way of development as a union member and grew to be administratively represented by two Soviet Armenian ethnic entities — the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (ranked a union republic) and Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (a territory within the Azerbaijan SSR). The First Republic was established in late May 1918 to be replaced by the Second Republic, or Soviet Armenia, in early December 1920. In 1920–1922, the latter was officially referred to as ‘independent Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia’, and then as a territory within the Transcaucasian Soviet Federation (1922–1936) and the Soviet Union (1936–1991). After Transcaucasian Federation was abolished in 1936, Soviet Armenia was incorporated into the USSR as a self-sufficient union republic under the name Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. Goals. The study seeks to show the process of nation-state building in the USSR through the example of Armenia. Materials and methods. The article analyzes archival materials represented by official documents and acts dealing with Soviet nation-state building, as well as collections of laws and party decrees. The main research methods employed are the historical/comparative and historical/genetic ones. Results. Soviet Armenia within the USSR, as well as other Soviet republics and autonomies, was no independent state in the conventional sense, but at the same time it was endowed with many attributes and symbols of statehood. Finally, it was Soviet Armenia that — for first time in the history of Armenian statehood — obtained its own Constitution. Conclusions. Soviet Armenia was a nation in the unified Soviet state, and in the conditions of seven decades of unlimited power of the Communist Party preserved and developed the Armenian Soviet statehood to a maximum possible then and there. Most Armenian historians believe the present-day independent Third Republic would never have emerged (since 1991) but for the period of Soviet Armenia

Russian-British Economic Rivalry in Eastern Persia at the turn of the 20th Century: Kerman and Sistan

Introduction. The economic development of Eastern Persian provinces Kerman and Sistan — and the latter’s role in Russian-British economic rivalry — throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries remains somewhat understudied in both Russian and foreign historiographies. Goals. The article attempts an analysis of key trends in the development of Sistan and Kerman at the turn of the 20th century and their significance in foreign economic activities of both Great Britain and Russia. Materials and methods. The paper investigates reports by Russian diplomats to have headed Consulates to Kerman and Sistan. The employed research methods are the historical/genetic, historical/comparative, and historical/typological ones. Results. Russian diplomats paid great attention to peculiarities of Kerman and Sistan’s development, with due regard of their ethnic compositions, climatic conditions, and economic potentials. The article emphasizes that for a long time foreign trade of Kerman and Sistan was dominated by the British Empire which used, first of all, the potential and experience gained by India in organizing trade with Persia. The analysis of the Russian diplomatic reports shows since the late 19th century Russia — driven by its own foreign economic ambitions in Eastern Persia — was showing great interest in these provinces. St. Petersburg was aware of the impossibility of maintaining political dominance in Persia without strengthening its economic presence in the country, including in regions traditionally dominated by the British Empire. This initiative of St. Petersburg caused great concern in London. Conclusions. In the late 19th – early 20th centuries, Russia succeeded in challenging the positions of the British Empire in Sistan and Kerman markets, even in the segment of textile exports traditionally dominated by Great Britain. At the same time, when it comes to describe the obvious achievements of Russia in Persia’s eastern provinces it should be noted that Russian entrepreneurs showed little interest in developing trade with Kerman and Sistan. Therefore, most foreign economic operations were to be implemented with the active participation of Russian diplomatic missions. However, on the eve of WWI Russia’s entrepreneurs did take an initiative of their own, and thus paved further trade success in Sistan and Kerman