No 1 (2025)

Building upon the findings outlined in the article published in the 2024 sixth issue, the present study undertakes an in-depth examination of the evolution of the concept of consensus within the context of Italian society during the Mussolini regime. This analysis draws upon both Italian and English-language historiographies of the 21st century, offering a comprehensive and nuanced perspective on the subject. The authors of the present study identify the distinguishing characteristics of the three major Italian historiographic schools. Firstly, the “progressive and democratic” bloc, which includes Paul Corner, Philip V. Cannistraro, Maura E. Hametz, and Emilio Gentile. Secondly, the revisionists, often considered successors of Renzo De Felice, with notable figures such as Patrick Bernhard, Christopher Duggan, Kate Ferris, Michael Ebner, and Luca La Rovere. Finally, the postrevisionist school, comprising Roberta Pergher, Giulia Albanese, Angelo Caglioti, Alessio Gagliardi, and Ferdinando Cordova. The study provides an in-depth analysis of the ongoing debate between the representatives of the two conflicting schools, Corner and Bernhard. The discussion centered on the responsibility of the Italian people for the prolonged duration of Mussolini’s regime and the content and period of consensus. The active involvement in the discussion of English-language authors was partly based on new sources and research methodologies that revealed previously overlooked components of consensus in everyday life, cinema, among women, students, academics, and major entrepreneurs. Expanding the discourse into the domain of local history further exacerbated the schism within Italian historiography concerning the assessment of the Fascist regime’s interactions with the general populace and the extent of its societal infiltration. The authors underscore the merits, in addition to the methodological limitations, of the works by representatives of various historiographic schools.

The German question was a key issue in British and American foreign policy after the WWII. The Anglo-Saxon intellectual tradition, which is distinguished by its pragmatism, has fostered a close interconnection between the discipline of historiography and the pursuit of contemporary foreign policy objectives. A comparative analysis of dissertation research in Great Britain and the United States enables the tracing of the methodological evolution amongst international authors, while simultaneously elucidating the priorities of British and American policy in Germany. The evaluation of the German question by British and American scholars in the post-war era is a crucial element in the comprehension of their strategic objectives in Europe and the contemporary dynamics of global politics. The issue under discussion has not been the subject of in-depth investigation within the Russian academic community. The evidence presented is largely derived from doctoral dissertations completed at British and American universities in the years following the Second World War. The author outlines the core elements of the research methodology, elucidates the impact of historical events and processes on the selection of dissertation subjects, and illuminates the distinctive characteristics of doctoral students’ work in comparison with the publications of established, senior scholars who have shaped the foundations of Anglo-American historiography.

In the second and concluding part of the article, the author analyses the perceptions of Edmund Burke, the celebrated British orator, philosopher, and political writer, held by his Russian contemporaries. In particular, the author considers the pamphlet by the Russian diplomat and writer Alexei Vasilyevich Naryshkin, which was inspired by Burke’s seminal work, ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’, published in 1790. The appendix contains two hitherto unpublished letters by Burke, which are currently stored in the Russian archives.

In the article, the author examines the ideological underpinnings of Europe’s transition to colonialism in the nineteenth century. The Congress of Vienna in 1814 represented a pivotal juncture in Europe’s transition towards a novel system of international relations, one that was predicated on a Western-centric theory of progress. The Muslim countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean, specifically Algeria, Tunisia, and Tripoli, were excluded from this newly established system. Consequently, it permitted the abrogation of their sovereignty and interventionist policies towards them. The purpose of this article is to elucidate the historical origins of European colonialism and to challenge the pejorative stereotypes regarding Muslim countries and Islam that pervaded European politics and culture during the 18th and 19th centuries and were imperialistic in their character. The distinctive contribution of this study is to illustrate the intrinsic link between the ascendant Western-centric ideology that emerged in Europe following 1814 and the practice of coercive intervention in the domestic politics of North African countries, which ultimately resulted in the colonisation of the region. This study draws upon the works of European philosophers and political activists from the late 18th and early 19th centuries, along with printed publications from that era and documents from the Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire. The article adopts a historiographical approach that draws upon the works of Edward Wadie Said, the seminal figure in the field of Orientalism, as well as those of contemporary scholars from Russia and the West who also contributed to the study of the origins of colonialism. The author posits that the Congress of Vienna constituted a pivotal moment in the relationship between Europe and the countries of North Africa. It was at this juncture that the legal status of the region’s countries was called into question, a process that ultimately led to their colonisation.

The Russian policy in Central Asia during the latter half of the nineteenth century encompassed a multitude of intricate instruments, collectively aimed at integrating the region into the empire. In light of these considerations, the question of how newly acquired territories should be governed acquired particular salience. In the sources examined in this article, Russian statesmen Nikolai Rozenbakh and Nikolai Charykov employed the concept of the “charm of the Russian name” in their analysis of this issue. The overarching objective was to create a governance structure in Central Asia that would ensure the safety and security of the local population, facilitate economic activity, and provide access to cutting-edge technology. The aim of this article is to elucidate the understanding of this concept by both politicians. Nikolai Rozenbakh held the position of Governor-General of the Guberniya of Russian Turkestan between 1884 and 1889, while Nikolai Charykov served as a diplomatic official under the Governor-General from 1883 to 1886 and subsequently as a political agent in Bukhara from 1886 to 1890. The significance of this issue can be elucidated by acknowledging the paucity of research conducted on the activities of those directly responsible for implementing Russia’s policy in Central Asia. This limitation impairs our capacity to fully comprehend the intricacies of the regional processes unfolding there. A critical examination of the memoirs of Russian administrators in Turkestan, along with an analysis of epistolary sources and business correspondence, reveals that the “charm of the Russian name” could be interpreted in multiple ways. A comprehensive examination of these materials enables the identification of several key substantive elements, including moral, technical, and scientific superiority; the establishment of law and order; concern for the safety of local residents; the eradication of phenomena that impeded the implementation of the “policy of peace and prosperity”, and the preservation of traditional forms of life that did not conflict with it. The study’s principal conclusion is that both statesmen did not regard the indoctrination in Russian legal and ideological principles as a principal method of integrating Central Asia into Russia. Instead, they employed a balanced approach between “soft” and “hard” power in their interactions with the local population and elites.

The article addresses an understudied aspect of the history of the Great War, namely the humanitarian cooperation between Russia and Romania. The study draws upon a corpus of Russian archival documents, the majority of which are introduced into the academic circuit for the first time. The Russian-Romanian humanitarian cooperation during the Great War was predicated on a complex array of factors, including military, political, and geographical considerations. It is important to acknowledge that prior to Romania’s military involvement, this interaction was constrained to the neutrality policy declared by the official government in Bucharest. In this context, the Russian diplomatic efforts played a pivotal role in advancing Russian interests by utilizing Romanian territory for the transportation of cargo and provision of medical assistance to Serbia. Subsequent to Romania’s involvement in military operations, communication between the Russian Red Cross Society (RRCS) and the Romanian Red Cross (RRC), which had been tasked with the provision of logistical support to Russian troops stationed in Romania, underwent a notable increase. Nevertheless, despite the benevolence of the Romanian government and the royal family, the resolution of these issues remained challenging due to structural deficiencies in Romania’s material and technical capabilities. In consideration of the interests of its Balkan ally, the Romanian Red Cross Society (RRCS) opened the Kaufmann surgical and orthodontic infirmaries in Bucharest, a facility which was required for the treatment of Romanian military personnel. In consequence of the military setbacks suffered by the Romanian forces in the autumn of 1916 and the occupation of a significant portion of Romanian territory, the Russian government extended humanitarian assistance to the refugees, facilitating their relocation to the southern provinces of the Russian Empire. The cessation of humanitarian cooperation was a direct consequence of the revolutionary upheavals that took place in Russia in 1917 and the signing of the armistice with the Central Powers by Romania.

Investment in the economies of other countries was the traditional form of Dutch export. As an old colonial power, the Netherlands had, since the eighteenth century, become accustomed to reaping moderate but regular profits from continuously investing in foreign commercial enterprises. The country’s neutral status during the Great War promised it preferential treatment when it came to participating in the reconstruction of war-torn European economies. At the same time, the Netherlands belonged to the group of countries that responded negatively to the rather favourable concessions offered by Soviet Russia. Drawing on a wide range of published and archival sources, the article examines the unsuccessful experience of a Dutch timber company’s private initiative to participate in a joint concession venture with the Soviet Trust. The history of the joint-stock company “Rusgollandles” is quite well-known, but there is still no comprehensive assessment of its participation in the restoration of the USSR wood industry, and there is no reasonable explanation as to the reasons for the termination of the concession activities of the Dutch in the European North of Soviet Russia. In addition to the conflict of interest between the expectations of the Soviet side and the real motives of the Dutch concessionaires, the authors analyse the international aspect of the Soviet-Dutch enterprise, which influenced the economic results of “Rusgollandles”.

The economic policy of autarky has consistently been regarded as an appealing alternative to a policy of free trade for developing or isolated states. The autarkic policy pursued by Nazi Germany prior to World War II represents a significant topic of academic interest, particularly in the context of historical analysis. The subject of this study is the concept of “economy of the extended space” as a form of autarky in Germany during the 1930s. Concurrently, the primary focus is on the application of this model to one of the most understudied areas of the Third Reich’s foreign economic interactions, namely German-Yugoslav relations. The relevance of this topic is determined by two key considerations: firstly, the importance of the phenomenon of the existence of a state with limited resources in conditions of isolation; and secondly, the significance of the “Yugoslav factor” in the context of Berlin’s foreign policy during the interwar period. The primary objective of this research is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the “economy of the extended space” that emerged in Nazi Germany and the processes through which European states that were primarily agrarian and not significantly influenced by industrialisation were subjugated to its control. Firstly, it is important to note that the focus of this discussion is on the states of South-Eastern Europe. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia represents a particularly noteworthy example of a successful state in this region. It was a large state with a diverse economy, including a thriving agricultural sector and significant mineral reserves. Additionally, Yugoslavia emerged as an important market for German industrial products, contributing to its economic stability and growth. The author examines the economic situation in Germany in the 1930s, the controversy surrounding supporters and opponents of autarkic policies, and the relationship between Germany and Yugoslavia in the interwar period. The study draws upon a variety of historical sources, including documents from the Political Archive of the German Foreign Ministry in Berlin, reports from Third Reich diplomats published in the collection of diplomatic papers titled “Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik: 1918–1945”, statistical data from Yugoslavia, articles from scholarly journals, collections of speeches and monographs written by German researchers from the 1920s to 1930s, and research works from the latter half of the 20th century on the economics of Nazi Germany. The findings of the study indicated that the relationship between Germany and Yugoslavia was mutually beneficial. Both states were invested in the positive development of the other’s economy. Hitler’s decision to incorporate Yugoslavia into the “economy of the extended space” had several advantages. Firstly, it provided Germany with a reliable source of agricultural products and minerals, situated in close proximity to its territory. Secondly, it enabled Germany to maintain its primary trade relationship with Western countries, while also avoiding a complete reorientation of trade towards South-Eastern European countries.

In the article, the author examines the role of the Saudi clerical class, or ulama, in the power struggle between King Saud bin Abd al-Aziz and his younger cousin and Crown Prince Faisal, as well as its structural organisation and social influence. Russian researchers have devoted minimal attention to this topic, while researchers from other countries have offered divergent perspectives on the role of the ulama in the events of 1958–1964. The objective of this study is to ascertain the extent to which the influence of the Saudi clergy impacted the outcome of the power struggle. In the middle of the last century, the Kingdom faced significant internal challenges, including a nomadic economy crisis, high unemployment, an overpopulated agrarian sector, excessive spending by the ruling establishment, and widespread corruption. As early as 1958, it became apparent that King Saud’s policies were potentially leading to a catastrophic outcome. This prompted opposition on the part of Crown Prince Faisal. Saud experienced a series of diplomatic setbacks between 1958 and 1964, resulting in the loss of his erstwhile allies. In early November 1964, he was compelled to abdicate in favour of Faisal. The clergy constituted the religious elite of the country, wielding considerable authority primarily among the settled population. In the struggle for power, they provided support to Faisal, exerting pressure on Saud in the ideological domain, and openly criticising the introduction of elements of Western culture, including television and photo studios. Moreover, the ulama supported Faisal’s party ultimata of 1962 and 1964 to Saud and endorsed his succession in November 1964. The author’s analysis suggests that while the role of the ulama in this context was significant, it was not necessarily superior to that of the Bedouin. This is due to the fact that society was divided into sedentary and nomadic groups, the latter of which exhibited minimal respect for the authority of the ulama.

The Swiss Frédéric-César de La Harpe, who served as tutor to the Russian Emperor Ale-xander I, subsequently assumed a pivotal role in the history of his native country. He participated actively in the revolution that swept across Switzerland in 1798, ultimately becoming one of the most prominent figures in the new Helvetic Republic. Historiography has presented a complex assessment of his endeavours, accompanied by allegations of a betrayal of national interests. The objective of this study is to re-examine these assessments in the context of contemporary research on the history of Switzerland. It presents a fresh analysis of sources, including some that have only recently become available to the academic community, such as La Harpe’s correspondence and notes on state affairs that he compiled for Alexander I. The principal goal of this article is to examine La Harpe’s role in the construction of a new state. To this end, it will identify his contribution to the events of the Helvetic Revolution of 1798 and analyse the circumstances that allowed him to play a prominent part in this revolutionary process. As a result, he was appointed to the highest executive body of the republic. The article then goes on to analyse the main political projects that were implemented in the Helvetic Republic with the participation of La Harpe, as well as his role in the political struggle between different parties. The source study permits a comprehensive examination of La Harpe’s trajectory from an exile politician to the most powerful figure in the country, elucidating the pivotal reforms he initiated, the challenges he faced in governing, and the circumstances that led to his downfall following a coup d’état at the beginning of the year 1800. The most significant conclusion of the study is that La Harpe’s political views were internally contradictory. Despite espousing the liberal principles of the Enlightenment, he simultaneously sought to establish an authoritarian regime within the republic.