No 6 (2024)

One of the pivotal issues in the study of Italian fascism pertains to the question of public consensus under Mussolini’s regime. In the article, the author presents a comprehensive examination of the international historiographic discourse pertaining to this issue, tracing its evolution from the initial works published during the dictatorship to the impassioned debates that arose with the publication of Renzo De Felice’s multi-volume history of the Fascist regime in the 1960–1980s. At the core of De Felice’s research was the examination of the phenomenon of consensus within Italian society between 1920 and 1945. This paper acknowledges the value of De Felice’s contributions but challenges the methodological principles, research methods, and the conceptualisation of fascism as a long-term political strategy, particularly the notion of “Mussolinism” as a distinct form of “left-wing totalitarianism”. De Felice’s interpretation initially posited a consensus comprising new political forces and established elite structures. However, by the mid-1930s, this consensus had acquired a mass character, effectively eliminating the necessity for recourse to violence and endowing Mussolini’s regime with a distinctive quality: “incomplete totalitarianism”. De Felice’s analysis suggests that the collapse of the Fascist regime in Italy was primarily the result of a combination of miscalculations by the military and political leadership, coupled with inherent weaknesses in the system itself, rather than being driven by the erosion of mass consent. The historiographical debate surrounding the issue of consensus has been shaped by the works of Marxist historians and left-wing democrats who have opposed De Felice’s views. Additionally, the perspectives of liberals and regime apologists have contributed to this ongoing discussion. The 1990s saw the debate continue to evolve, encompassing both local and social historical analysis.

In the article, the author examines the daily activities of the Russian embassy in Istanbul during the mid-18^th century. The eastern orientation of Russian diplomatic efforts during the era of Peter the Great and his successors represents a relatively understudied aspect of the foreign policy of the Russian Empire. Furthermore, the focus of researchers is understandably on political issues, while the everyday reality of embassy staff – including the actual number of personnel, their individual personalities, maintenance costs, material culture and food – is overlooked. The Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire contains a wealth of hitherto unpublished documents that shed light on a number of subjects from the late summer and autumn of 1745. Following the unexpected passing of the Russian resident (the head of the embassy), Alexey Veshniakov, on 29 July 1745, his deputies, who had assumed the role of senior representatives of the Russian Mission, were concerned about the potential allegations of misappropriation of state-owned assets. It compelled them to meticulously catalogue all items stored within the mission, in addition to maintaining comprehensive records of the daily expenditure incurred for food supplies for a total staff complement of 42 individuals, including the family and domestic personnel of the late resident (16 persons). It would be fair to say that such matters are rarely addressed in diplomatic missives. However, the exceptional circumstances following the demise of Alexey Veshniakov provided scholars with the opportunity to reconstruct certain aspects of the daily life of the Russian colony in Istanbul.

Russian Christian pilgrims who visited the Holy Land in the eighteenth century and have left written accounts were interested in more than simply the customary religious aspects of pilgrimage. They also explored secular motifs and issues. In addition to religious concerns, they sought to understand the nature of the Middle East and the striking diversity and exoticism that characterised the region. The article focuses on the theme of nature as presented in two narrative sources: the pilgrimage accounts written by the Russian hieromonks Leontius (1763–1765) and Meletius (1793–1794). Leontius’ notes on his journey to the holy sites of Egypt and Palestine are currently in the archive and awaiting publication. Meletius’ “Journey to Jerusalem” was published twice (1798 and 1800), but failed to gain much scholarly attention. Analysis of these travelogues reveals that both inquisitive pilgrims articulated their perspectives on the Middle East with remarkable candour and openness. They are extremely emotional about its natural phenomena, guided by the God-centred perception of the world through the prism of Russian Orthodoxy. In describing the nature of the Middle East, Leontius and Meletius conveyed to us the sacred image of the Holy Land, which looked like a beautiful but elusive mirage, evoking nostalgic thoughts of the very distant past, but not of the present.

The author’s objective is to trace the principal stages of the genesis and evolution of the Russian maritime strategy in the context of the active expansion of its naval forces under Peter I and the deployment of the Archipelago expedition by Catherine II (1769–1775). The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of these developments on the geoeconomic landscape. In addition, this study examines the geopolitical situation of the Russian Empire following the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). It also investigates how ruling circles in Alawi Morocco responded to the emergence of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean, which had the effect of limiting the naval power of the Ottoman state. The article elucidates the multifaceted political, economic, and military circumstances that precipitated the Sultan of Morocco, Sidi Muhammad ibn Abdallah (1757–1790), to pursue the opening of his country to extensive foreign trade. However, given the weak commodity flows and the economic inexpediency of maintaining large formations of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean, the initial stage of Russian-Moroccan relations was limited to the exchange of letters and messages. Consequently, the demise of Sidi Muhammad (1790) and Catherine II (1796) brought an end to the development of this project. The author addresses the issue of the veracity of the Russian-Moroccan peace and trade treaty of the eighteenth century, examining the arguments that suggest it was in fact never signed. However, even if it were to be proven that the treaty was drafted, the fulfilment of its hypothetical provisions would present a significant challenge for both parties.

In the article, the author focuses on one of the most pivotal events of the First Egyptian Crisis (1831–1833), namely the conquest of the Syrian provinces of the Ottoman Empire by the troops of the rebel governor of Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha. Additionally, he elucidates the rationale behind the Russian Emperor Nicholas I’s decision to dispatch a contingent of Russian troops in 1833 to assist the Ottoman government in its efforts to safeguard its capital. The aim of this article is to analyse the strategies employed by Muhammad Ali Pasha, the Sublime Porte, and the Russian Empire with regard to Ottoman Syria, a region of key strategic importance during the development of the crisis. The present study demonstrates that the deployment of Egyptian troops to Syria in the spring and summer of 1832 was the pivotal factor in the subsequent course of events. This challenges the dominant view in historiography, which posits that the Russian intervention in the conflict was precipitated by a direct threat of capture of the Ottoman capital by Muhammad Ali Pasha’s troops in December 1832, and that St Petersburg’s plans were limited to the defence of the Asian shore of the Bosphorus. This article, which draws on archival documents and recollections of participants in the events, demonstrates the pivotal role played by Syria in the realisation of Muhammad Ali Pasha’s objective to establish a virtually independent power base. It also elucidates the strategic countermeasures devised by the Russian command with the intention of conducting military operations against the troops of Muhammad Ali in Asia Minor and Syria. Russia’s direct military and diplomatic intervention in the conflict between the Sublime Porte and Muhammad Ali Pasha in 1833 had a significant impact, effectively thwarting the Egyptian governor’s plans and providing the Ottoman government with the necessary time to restore the combat potential of its army. However, the alliance established between Russia and the Ottoman Empire at that time did not progress further due to opposition from Great Britain, France, and Austria.

In this article, the author analyses the causes and circumstances of the downfall of Adolphe Thiers, the first President of the Third French Republic. He held the office from 31 August 1871 until 24 May 1873, when he was compelled to resign. Although Thiers’ tenure as president was relatively brief, encompassing less than two years, it was of significant consequence in the establishment of the republican system in France. In many ways, this was the personal merit of President Thiers, who publicly espoused the cause of the republic, for which he was compelled to relinquish his post as head of state. The reasons for Thiers’ downfall have been the subject of considerable historical analysis. In this study, the author draws upon hitherto overlooked sources, thereby offering a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of an already well-researched topic. The focus of this inquiry is confidential diplomatic communications from the Russian Embassy in Paris. This source is significant in that it demonstrates that both the Russian ambassador to France, Prince Nikolay Orlov, and the embassy counsellor Grigory Okunev had direct contact with Thiers, enjoyed his confidence, and were well aware of the plans and intentions of the President of the Republic. They frequently met with him and his ministers, attended meetings of the National Assembly, and were thus able to gain a comprehensive understanding of the political process that gave rise to the republican system in France. It can be argued that their assessments and judgments are of significant interest to the historian. This is particularly true when considering the dispatches and analytical notes compiled at the Russian embassy in Paris for Emperor Alexander II by Chancellor Gorchakov. These documents have not attracted the appropriate level of attention from researchers for a considerable period of time and therefore represent a valuable and underutilised resource for historical research.

In the article, the author undertakes an examination of three distinct periods in the history of Russian-Turkish relations. From a chronological perspective, these periods encompass the 2000s, the 2010s, and the first half of the 2020s. By the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, Russia and Turkey had begun to accord a higher level of priority to their relations with each other in a number of areas, including diplomatic interaction at the global and regional levels, trade and economic relations, energy and military-technical cooperation. This situation starkly contrasts with the late 1990s, when Turkey demonstrated a tendency to align with the “collective West” in a manner driven by both inertia and ideology. The author posits that Russian-Turkish relations have undergone a dynamic transformation over the past quarter of a century, while each of the periods under consideration exhibiting a unique constellation of complementarity and competition. These two aspects defined the respective models of bilateral relations in each period. Existing research focuses mainly on various discrete aspects of the relationship between the two countries – be it diplomatic interaction, energy, or issues of intertwined or competing interests in specific hotspots and regions such as Syria, Libya, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. At the same time, a comprehensive analysis of the driving forces behind the transformation of Russia-Turkey relations is still lacking in academic publications on Turkey. In order to present such an analysis, this article draws on a number of important primary sources, including official documents of Russian and Turkish state agencies and structures involved in the implementation of foreign policy, national statistics, publications of news agencies, and leading media.

In the article, that author presents a detailed analysis of the propaganda tactics employed by both Kemalist and anti-Kemalist forces during the early 1930s. It draws upon a diverse array of source material, including the Turkish newspapers, such as “Nation” (Ulus), “Time” (Vakit), “Republic” (Cumhuriyet), and the opposition daily “Free Republic” (Serbes Cumhuriyet), which ran from October 1930 to January 1931. The latter was established as the official print media of the Free Republican Party (FRP), which was headed by a close associate of the President, Ali Fethi (Okyar). The daily became the mouthpiece of moderate liberal movement, while concurrently turning into a weapon of ideological confrontation between the FRP and the incumbent Kemalist Republican People’s Party (RPP). The study of the opposition newspaper represents a novel approach within the Russian academic literature, as there have been no previous attempts to examine the perspective of those opposed to the Kemalists, or to analyse the representation of the main ideas of the FRP in the press. The research focuses on the analysis of anti-Kemalist propaganda in the “Free Republic” newspaper. The plethora of propaganda clichés present on its pages renders “Free Republic” a valuable source for studying the ideological shift that occurred during the early 1930s. It demonstrates the efforts to devise an alternative programme for the development of the Turkish Republic and enables the reconstruction of the ideological and political context of the Kemalist unsuccessful endeavour to establish a controllable opposition in 1930. Although it had the potential to gain a foothold in the market, the “Free Republic” newspaper ultimately succumbed to the forces of pro-government press propaganda. Despite its ambitious and courageous editorial stance, the opposition daily could not withstand the formidable and sophisticated propaganda apparatus of the Kemalists.

Mikhail Rostovtzeff, an eminent classicist, occupied a pivotal role not only within the academic milieu of the Russian Diaspora but also in the years preceding and following his departure from Russia in 1918. His activities were especially noteworthy during the initial years of emigration. The State Archive of the Russian Federation holds copies of four documents from the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace (Leland Stanford Junior University) that illustrate the close relationship Rostovtzeff maintained with his like-minded colleague Pyotr Struve, one of the leaders of the Russian political emigration at the turn of the 1910s and early 1920s. Furthermore, the documents demonstrate Rostovtzeff’s active involvement in advancing anti-Bolshevik initiatives within the United States. Despite the apparent futility of his anti-Bolshevik efforts, Rostovtzeff nevertheless endeavoured to fulfill his public obligation through active engagement in social life abroad. This entailed offering aid to colleagues confronting daunting circumstances, cultivating and sustaining ties with the political milieu, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs, within the United States. The article introduces a previously unexplored correspondence between Rostovtzeff and Struve, providing insights not only into the lives of these scholars but also into the historical context of Soviet-American relations prior to the formal establishment of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the United States.