Czechoslovak Military Units in the USSR During the Great Patriotic War: Political and Legal Problems of Formation and Combat Use

Introduction. The article is devoted to the identification and analysis of political and legal problems that arose during the formation on the territory of the USSR and the combat use of Czechoslovak military units in the Great Patriotic War. Methods and materials. The methodological basis of the research presented in the article is the principles of scientific objectivity and historicism, as well as general and special methods typical of historical studies. The source base of the research includes both published and unpublished documents found by the author in the State Archive of the Russian Federation, the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History and the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Analysis. The Czechoslovak formations were part of the Czechoslovak armed forces and were subordinate to the emigrant government, and in operational and military-technical matters were under the Soviet supreme command. However, the presence of several actors (the Czechoslovak government in exile, the leadership of the USSR, the command of Czechoslovak units and the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia) led to a number of political and legal conflicts in this process. Firstly, the intention of the emigrant government to save military forces (in fact, supported in some way by the leadership of the USSR) was in conflict with the plans of the KSČ leadership and the commander of the Czechoslovak units, Svoboda L., who advocated maximum possible participation of Czechoslovaks in combat operations on the territory of the Soviet Union. Secondly, the Soviet side sought to put the Czechoslovak formations under its control. The third manifestation of the contradictions was “the case of the Army of A. Hasal” (autumn 1944), with which the problem of belonging to Transcarpathia was closely intertwined. Results. Despite the existence of a number of political and legal conflicts, they did not become an obstacle to the creation and combat use of Czechoslovak military formations on the Soviet-German front. In addition, the Soviet-Czechoslovak relations themselves developed quite constructively during the Great Patriotic War

Forming The Consumer Society in the USSR: Challenges for Authorities (1964–1982)

Introduction. In the 1960s, the formation of a consumer society began in the USSR. At the same time, the differences in living standard and quality of life between the segments of the population became more and more noticeable. These phenomena were in conflict with the Soviet ideology – the basis of the political system of the USSR. However, the problem of the consumer society formation in the USSR and the associated challenges to the Soviet system have not yet been sufficiently studied in historiography. Methods and materials. The methodological background of the research is based on the principles of scientific objectivity and historicism, as well as the general scientific and special methods typical for historical research. The research base includes both published and unpublished documents found by the author in the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History, the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History and the Central State Archive of the City of Moscow. Analysis. The Soviet power tried to respond to the challenges of consumer society within the framework of the new political and ideological concept of Developed Socialism. One of the tasks of the country’s development at this stage was declared to be the achievement of a high standard of living in the country, as well as the widespread introduction of a system of material incentives. This policy has had a certain effect. However, the previous challenges for the Soviet system remained, and new problems arose. The wage growth outstripped the growth of labor productivity, and the commodity deficit became one of the main reasons for the decline in the effectiveness of the material incentive system. To solve the problems listed above, the authorities introduced innovations in policy: reducing the rate of income growth and the population’s desire to consume, increasing the role of moral incentives, fighting surplus money, and pursuing people for non-labor income. These innovations were in conflict with the policy aimed at increasing the welfare of the population. Results. Thus, the response of Soviet ideology to the challenges of the consumer society was to implement mutually exclusive measures. First, the authorities, while officially promoting a policy of increasing living standards, in practice sought to limit the growth of consumption. Second, material incentives to work and the rejection of equalization were introduced simultaneously with the censure of enrichment. In addition, the authorities failed to eradicate the negative manifestations of the consumer society for the Soviet ideology. In general, the inability of Soviet ideology to provide an adequate response to the challenges of consumer society was one of the manifestations of the ideological impasse in which the country was during the period under review. Problems related to the standard of living of the population became one of the time mines that undermined the Soviet system and led to its collapse

NORTHERN BLACK SEA COAST IN THE AGGRESSIVE PLANS OF THE THIRD REICH AND ITS SATELLITES (1940-1944)

In this article the author analyses the content and implementation of the plans of Nazi Germany and its satellites towards the Northern Black Sea Coast during the pre-war period and the occupation period in the years of the Great Patriotic War (1940-1944). The Nazis designed the central part of this region for the primary colonization by German and European settlers, while the eastern part was planned for the economic exploitation. Romania also had plans for the Northern Black Sea. In 1918 this country occupied Bessarabia (in 1940 this region was retrieved to the Soviet Union). In the predatory plans of Romania this region was viewed in two perspectives - Bessarabia as the region considered by Romania as an integral part of the country, and Transnistria as an occupied territory, playing the role of a subject of territorial bargaining with Germany. During World War II Germany and Romania created their occupation zones in the Northern Black Sea. In addition, several other countries also had their plans for the Northern Black Sea. Some areas of this region were occupied by Italian troops. The Italian Consulate in Odessa implemented an active advocacy to prepare the ground for a possible transition of the region under the control of Italy. However, the defeat of the Italian army at Stalingrad nullified the possibility of this country’s participation in the redistribution of the Soviet lands. Bulgaria expressed some interest in the Northern Black Sea Coast too. However, although Germany was interested in involving Bulgaria in the war against the Soviet Union, this did not happen. The Turkish government unofficially informed the German government of its claims to the Crimea and other Soviet territories. The Turkish mission visited the occupied Soviet territory, including Crimea. However, after the defeat of Wehrmacht at Stalingrad, Turkey refused to enter the war on Germany’s side