Vladimir Nikolaevich Mamyachenkov

This article examines the memoirs of the outstanding Soviet and Russian diplomat A.F. Dobrynin, first published in 1997. It is noted that the structure of the memoirs is well thought out, logical, and meets the requirements. It provides an overview of the historiography of the Soviet and Russian diplomatic service, which includes a large number of memoirs. Dobrynin's life and career in the diplomatic service are covered in detail. It is argued that Dobrynin's role as Soviet ambassador to the United States during the inception and development of détente and strategic arms limitation is difficult to overestimate. It is noted that in his memoirs, Dobrynin demonstrated profound analytical skills in identifying and articulating the causes of the eventual dismantling of détente. It is emphasized that the characterizations given to a number of Soviet political leaders are brief and tolerant, with the exception of M.S. Gorbachev. Dobrynin assesses the level of foreign policy preparation of most members of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee as "poor." The author concludes that the memoirs of the former Soviet ambassador to the United States represent a highly interesting, significant historical source deserving of thorough study.

This article examines the development and reconstruction of the resource base of state farms (sovkhozes) in the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic during the initial postwar period from 1945 to 1953. The scholarly significance of this study lies in its focus on a timeframe that has attracted considerable attention within social history and economic historiography. Drawing upon an extensive corpus of primary sources — including consolidated annual reports of sovkhozes and related documentation held in two federal archives and one regional repository — all of which are introduced into academic discourse for the first time, the author provides a comprehensive analysis of the recovery process. The paper argues that the Great Patriotic War precipitated a measurable contraction of the state farm system across the country. It further contends that the most rapid pace of restoration occurred between 1949 and 1950. Despite evidence of a strengthened materialtechnical foundation and a partial resolution of labor shortages, the findings suggest that the pre-war configuration of the sovkhoz network in Bashkiria was never fully reconstituted. Consequently, by the early 1950s, key performance indicators failed to reach their prewar benchmarks, and the public sector continued to occupy a marginal position within the agrarian economy of the republic.

This article examines the production activities of state-owned agricultural enterprises (sovkhozes) in the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) during the period from 1945 to 1953. The study is motivated by the sustained scholarly interest in the postwar transformation of Soviet agriculture. The research draws upon consolidated annual reports of sovkhozes and other archival materials sourced from two federal and two regional archives, all of which are introduced into academic discourse for the first time. A comprehensive analysis of sovkhoz performance is provided, with particular emphasis on crop farming and livestock production. It is argued that the management system of republican sovkhozes exhibited a notable degree of decentralization. The findings indicate that crop cultivation constituted the leading sector within the state farm economy of Bashkiria during the period under review. The authors conclude that in the immediate postwar years, the sovkhoz system underwent a process of strengthening its material and technical infrastructure and restoring its prewar economic capacity. However, it is emphasized that even by the early 1950s, output and state procurement levels for key agricultural products had not reached those of 1940. The article demonstrates that, overall, the state agricultural sector in the republic — as in the USSR as a whole — failed to emerge as a serious competitor to the collective farm (kolkhoz) system.

The relevance of the article is due to the enduring interest shown by Russian society in the historical period studied in the article. The purpose of writing the work was to study the dynamics of the development of crop and livestock industries in state farms of the Sverdlovsk region in 1945–1953. The novelty of the study is ensured by the use of materials from two leading federal archives and one regional one. The authors state that the Great Patriotic War dealt a powerful blow to the region's agriculture, and it was possible to avoid mass starvation only with the help of comprehensive and large-scale development of vegetable gardening. Attention is focused on the fact that major shortcomings in the work of Soviet farms were the presence of excessive specialization and the one-sided focus of their activities, which led to excessive labor stress during field work and significant underutilization of the labor force during the rest of the year. It is concluded that in the years under consideration the state sector (in which state farms played a leading role) played an insignificant role in agriculture in the Sverdlovsk region.

This article examines the development of the resource base of state (Soviet) agriculture (state farms) in the Sverdlovsk region during the years 1945 to 1953. The relevance of this study is underscored by the significant interest among social science scholars in the historical period under investigation. The primary sources include consolidated annual reports from state farms and other materials sourced from two federal and two regional archives, which are being introduced into scholarly discourse for the first time. A comprehensive analysis of the restoration process of the resource base of Soviet agriculture is conducted. It is noted that during the Great Patriotic War, there was a significant contraction of the state farm system in the country. The article asserts that the highest rates of restoration were observed in the years 1949 to 1950. The authors conclude that, despite improvements in material and technical resources and the resolution of most staffing issues, the state farm system in the Middle Urals was not restored to its previous form. It is highlighted that even in the early 1950s, production and delivery levels of key agricultural products to the state had not returned to pre-war levels of 1940, and the state sector in agriculture within the Sverdlovsk region continued to play a relatively minor role.

Relevance and goals. The presented article is relevant, since it analyzes the staffing and salary levels of two neighboring Russian regions in a rather extreme historical period. Materials and methods. The novelty of the work is seen in the fact that it uses materials from the leading federal archive (the Russian State Archive of Economics (RGAE). The result of the study was the results of a comparative analysis of the Molotov and Sverdlovsk regions by two indicators: the number of workers and employees, and their average monthly salary. Results. It is emphasized that the economy of the studied regions had a pronounced industrial character. It is claimed that in the period under study, wages grew steadily in almost all sectors of the economy, increasing to two or more times in a decade and a half. It is stated that the sectors with the largest number of employees, in addition to industry, in the period under study were transport, trade, construction, agriculture and public education. It is declared that the result of the Great Patriotic War was a significant increase in the number of workers and employees in the economies of both regions and the acceleration of the development of a number of their industries corresponding to this growth. Conclusions. It is concluded that most of the considered indicators of the number of employees and their wages in both studied regions were very similar, and the discrepancies were not of a fundamental nature.

This article examines the dynamics of state procurement and purchase of livestock products in the Ural region during the first post-war five-year period. The authors utilized materials from two leading federal archives — the State Archive of the Russian Federation and the Russian State Archive of Economy. The study emphasizes the extremity of the examined temporal period. It is demonstrated that even by 1950, the pre-war levels of procurement and purchases of meat, eggs, and wool in the republics and regions of the Ural had not been achieved. The authors conclude that despite annual increases in production, Ural regions only occasionally met the established procurement targets, as these targets were generally set unrealistically high. It is underscored that the system of state procurement and purchase of agricultural products effectively functioned as a form of natural taxation. Furthermore, it is asserted that by 1950, livestock farming in the Ural region remained in a dire state, as evidenced by the dynamics of state procurement and purchases during the first post-war five-year period. The conclusion drawn is that during extreme periods in the history of Russia and the USSR, this system convincingly demonstrated its urgent necessity.

Based on the materials from the Russian State Archives of Economics, the article examines the condition of the material and technical resource base and the agricultural production on the state farms of the Arkhangelsk Region in 1946–1950. It is pointed out that the activity of state farms has never attracted much attention from researchers (unlike collective farms), which is why the historiography of this problem is very sparse. Until the 1960s, state farms did not constitute serious competition to collective farms and household plots in agricultural production. The paper provides dynamic data on the material and technical resource base of state farms, on the situation in agriculture and animal husbandry, delivery of agricultural products to the state, and role of state farms in agricultural production. The authors emphasize that during the Great Patriotic War, both the number of state farms themselves and their resource base decreased. In addition to the war, the region’s agriculture suffered heavy losses from extremely unfavourable weather events of 1946 and 1947. It is argued that the production and technical resource base of the state farms in the Arkhangelsk Region during the period under study was quite modest; nevertheless, the yield of grain and potatoes exceeded the nationwide numbers. When it comes to livestock farming, milk yield remained at a satisfactory level. The authors draw a conclusion that state farms played a rather insignificant role in the agricultural sector of the region.

This article analyzes the number, length of service, and age of workers and employees of state agricultural farms in the Urals in the first post-war five-year period (1946–1950). The novelty of the study is that the article used materials from the State Archive of the Russian Federation (SARF) and the Russian State Archive of Economics (RSAE) which were previous unstudied; the literature on the topic is limited. The article covers a significant period in the history of the Soviet Union – the first five years after the end of the Second World War. The majority of workers in state agricultural farms were young people with little work experience. The largest number of workers on state farms and subsidiary farms of enterprises and organizations were in the Chkalov region; the smallest numbers (due to the recently ended war) were workers under the age of 30. In the first post-war years, the bulk of workers in all age groups were women. The demographic perturbations of the war and post-war years are reflected in the number and structure of workers of the government agencies studied. It is concluded that during the period under study, state-owned agricultural enterprises gradually lost their importance, including for reasons of staffing.

This article examines the problems of the development of one of the most important branches of agriculture, i. e. livestock breeding, within the borders of Molotov Region (now the territory of Perm Krai) in the first postwar years. The research draws upon the materials of the USSR Central Statistical Office stored in the Russian State Archive of Economics. This allows the authors to study the resource base of the industry, including the number of livestock of its main types, show the activities of party and Soviet bodies to restore the industry in the first postwar years, characterise measures taken to strengthen various ways of encouraging workers, trace the development of animal husbandry as a branch of the economy and the dynamics of the main types of its products in the study area for all categories of public and individual sector farms. The data presented by authors demonstrate that collective farm livestock farming turned out to be much more effective in the postwar crisis than livestock farming on state farms. The authors emphasise that individual farms of the population played a decisive role in stabilising the livestock sector of the region in the post-war five-year period. In general, the dynamics of livestock farming in Molotov Region were characterised by ambiguity and inconsistency. However, it can be concluded that the region’s livestock farming, despite all the difficulties it faced in the aftermath of the destructive Second World War, definitely stepped forward, exceeding the prewar level of meat, milk and wool production in 1950.