Belarusian Smolensk Region

Creation of the Regional Management System in the Belarusian-Russian-Ukrainian Borderland (1917—1939)

• admin • 31 min read • Артыкулы

Mikhail Starovoytov

In the context of globalization, the interest of social scientists in current regional issues is increasing, allowing for responses to many socio-political, economic, and spiritual problems generated by the 20th century. After the collapse of the USSR, the countries of the CIS began the modernization of regional administrative power and management structures. This reform is being actively implemented in the Russian Federation and is in the development stage in Ukraine and Belarus. The study of various aspects of the life of the population of Russia in the 20th century, notes Yu. A. Polyakov [18, p. 4], is associated with difficulties caused by frequent changes in territory, administrative division, and borders of numerous regions. The study of ethnosociocultural processes in the Belarusian-Russian-Ukrainian borderland (BRUP) requires clarification of the main stages of constructing its administrative-territorial structure. The interwar period should be particularly highlighted, when, as a result of administrative-territorial reforms in the union republics, a local management system was created, which still exists in BRUP today.

This article is relevant and has significant scientific and practical importance. Firstly, it examines various aspects of the history of a polyethnic region in addressing the tasks of scientific and cultural cooperation among the Gomel, Bryansk, and Chernihiv regions within the framework of the integration program of the Euroregion “Dnieper.” Secondly, the historical perspective on the problem we propose may be considered in the development of the Regional Development Concept of the Republic of Belarus until 2015. Thirdly, addressing this issue is important not only for analyzing socio-political and ethnocultural processes in BRUP but also for studying the complex processes of national-state construction in Belarus during the period under consideration. Considering that one of the main tasks of Belarusian foreign policy is to establish good-neighborly relations with bordering states, we have attempted to illustrate the process of creating the main administrative unit in the polyethnic BRUP during the reorganization in the USSR. This process, as is known, was conflict-free during the difficult 1920s and 1930s, as the region historically did not have and does not have exacerbated national relations. The administrative-territorial reforms of the interwar period have become the subject of research not only in the history of state construction but also in the foreign policy of independent neighboring states. The problem of creating non-autonomous regions, both in the USSR as a whole and in BRUP, has been practically undeveloped by lawyers and historians. It has been touched upon fragmentarily by S. A. Elizarov [10], V. A. Krutalevich [13], Russian historian E. G. Karelin [12], Ukrainian researcher Ya. V. Vermenich [3], and others.

The measures taken by the autocratic government at the beginning of the 20th century to delineate state and local administration, as is known, did not yield positive results. In the summer of 1913, V. I. Lenin wrote that a serious local reform in Russia could not be discussed without abolishing its medieval, serfdom, bureaucratic administrative division [14, p. 147]. Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire B. V. Shtyurmer attempted to change the existing situation. In a memorable note dated July 7, 1916, addressed to Nicholas II, he justified the urgency of introducing a regional structure in Russia. The Emperor imposed a resolution for the urgent development of a draft law and its consideration in legislative assemblies in the fall of 1916, but for understandable reasons, it was not adopted [17, pp. 94, 96, 98, 102]. B. V. Shtyurmer wrote: “In developing the issue… special attention should be paid to the distribution of provinces among regions. In the regional system, there is always a danger of separatism, especially given that a significant part of the population of the region does not belong to the Great Russian nationality. The fragmentation of provinces among regions is likely unavoidable in some cases, but, as a rule, it should be avoided to prevent disruption across all departments that have their provincial bodies on the ground” [17, pp. 102—103]. He believed that “the urgent need for broader local authority can be ensured only if there is indeed strong power at the local level, and it will be even more difficult to govern the country in the near future” [17, p. 103].

In 1917, the Provisional Government undertook measures to reform local self-government; however, the administrative mechanism did not fully function. New structures were created, and regional associations emerged. In Belarus, in May, the Western region was established with its center in the city of Minsk, uniting the Minsk, Mogilev, and Vilna provinces. After the Bolsheviks came to power, the old state apparatus began to collapse. In a letter from the NKVD dated December 24, 1917, “On the Organization of Local Self-Government,” it was indicated that at the local level, the governing and authority bodies are councils, which should subordinate all institutions. A scheme for replacing the previous local government bodies was proposed. Regional councils were listed first [20, pp. 184—186]. The decree of the SNK dated January 27, 1918, “On the Procedure for Changing the Borders of Provincial, District, and Other,” granted the right to resolve these issues “entirely to local councils.” Regions, provinces, districts, and volosts could be divided into parts, forming new administrative or economic units.

The structure and relationships in Soviet bodies were established by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) on December 23, 1918, in the resolution “On Regional Associations.” District, provincial, and regional centers were preserved until a fundamental revision of the administrative division. The regional bodies of the Central Industrial (Moscow) region were abolished, and regional associations were established in the Urals, the West, and the North. The Western Regional Association included the Smolensk, Mogilev, Vitebsk, Minsk, and Grodno provinces. The Pskov and seven other provinces were included in the Northern Regional Association with its center in Petrograd. The order of relations between the center, regions, provinces, and local councils was established. Regional associations were to strictly implement all directives of the central Soviet authority, as they “are auxiliary bodies to the center at the local level” [11, pp. 97—98].

A stage of significant territorial-administrative changes began. Even in the pre-revolutionary period, a number of cities (Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Yekaterinburg, Gomel, Bryansk, etc.) became more significant economic, industrial, political, and cultural centers than the provincial capitals. In 1918 and the first half of 1920, they became the centers of newly created provinces, including Gomel. This inevitably led to a redrawing of borders, which was often imposed and carried out hastily and thoughtlessly. To streamline the resolution of issues regarding changes in the borders of provinces, districts, and volosts, on July 15, 1919, the SNK adopted a resolution abolishing its decree of January 27, 1918. The question of changing borders was resolved by the NKVD upon the representation of local provincial councils [21, p. 412]. Based on the experience gained through trial and error, V. I. Lenin in 1921—1922 gradually shifted from “…moderation and caution regarding the new division of provinces” [15] to proposing to M. F. Vladimirskiy to “…hurry with the zoning of the RSFSR…” [16]. However, besides economic and national necessity, there was also localism. In this regard, in 1923, a resolution was adopted to cease the division of territories with criminal liability for its violation.

The issues of zoning the republics and regions were resolved with difficulty, amid constant disputes and discussions, as they needed to be linked to the tasks of the New Economic Policy (NEP), the State Electrification Plan (GOELRO), and the development of a new planning system. Zoning projects were considered not only by commissions of the VTsIK, Gosplan, NKVD, but also by high party instances. They were discussed at the plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) in May and at the Politburo in June 1922, twice in the Politburo in March 1923 before the XII Party Congress [25, op. 163, d. 279, pp. 5, 8, 19—24; d. 327, pp. 4—5; op. 3, d. 344, pp. 1]. The experience of the Temporary Belarusian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP(b), acquired during the first enlargement of the BSSR, was used later to resolve contentious issues. During the structuring of regions in 1928—1929 and 1937—1938, temporary bureaus of the Central Committee of the VKP(b) were also created for each region. In the context of zoning in favor of subordination—re-subordination of administrative-territorial units, economic feasibility was prioritized, followed by cultural-historical traditions and the ethnographic factor.

Despite the involvement of leading scholars and party-soviet leaders of the highest level in the development of the zoning concept, the work progressed slowly. A. I. Rykov critically assessed the situation at the XII Congress of the RCP(b), pointing out that from September 1919 until the Congress’s work, there was a delay from the districts to Gosplan. He repeatedly urged the Central Committee to “take all zoning matters into their own hands” [8, pp. 477—478], which was done. These issues began to be regularly considered at meetings of the Politburo and the Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee. Decisions were made on the XV, XVI, and XVII congresses of the party, at the XVI party conference. The construction of the administrative-territorial structure in the country was placed under the full control of the party. By the mandate of the XII Congress, which recognized the previous administrative-territorial division as inconsistent with the new political and economic needs of the country, and taking into account the zoning being conducted in Ukraine, a decision was made to create two experimental regions: an industrial one in the Urals and an agricultural one in the North Caucasus.

In the Ukrainian SSR, zoning was carried out in 1922—1925. This union republic was the first to abolish the pre-revolutionary administrative-territorial structure and introduced a three-tier (village councils, districts, and regions) division. The Politburo of the Central Committee of the VKP(b) approved the proposal of the Central Committee of the CP(b)U on the abolition of provinces in the Ukrainian SSR and the transition to districts, provided that village councils were strengthened [25, op. 3, d. 487, p. 3]. In the BSSR, zoning based on the Ukrainian model was carried out in the second half of 1924—early 1927. For Belarus, it was very relevant. In 1923—1926, territorial issues were considered in a party-soviet manner in Minsk, Moscow, Smolensk, Bryansk, as they were complicated during the creation of the Western region, during the two enlargements of the BSSR. There was no agreement among the regions. Belarus tried to implement its proposals, Vitebsk province had its own, orienting towards Leningrad, Bryansk towards Moscow, while Gomel rejected both the “Smolensk” and “Belarusian” options [24, pp. 41—43]. E. G. Karelin convincingly demonstrated how the reform of zoning in the USSR in the 1920s was complicated in the Western region because it affected the interests of Smolensk, Bryansk, Gomel, parts of Tver (Rzhev), Pskov (Velikiye Luki), and more than a third of Kaluga provinces [12, p. 65]. At the local level, there was much inconsistency, contradictions, haste, and campaign-like behavior. Thus, in January 1924, the presidium of the Smolensk regional executive committee proposed to create the Western region within six months [12, p. 63]. Such localistic activities were criticized by member of the VTsIK commission K. D. Yegorov, who wrote in the newspaper “Pravda” in August 1925 that “zoning cannot be carried out in a rush, through mechanical territorial reshaping… with a cavalry charge. Zoning is a deep and lengthy (dynamic) process of construction and organization.” He emphasized the need to study the economies of the created regions, administrative and cultural-social issues, which “should be directed in accordance with the forms of regional construction” [9, p. 5].

The identified documents indicate that the heated debates regarding the first and second enlargements of the BSSR should be linked not only to Belarusian issues but also to the existence of Gomel, Bryansk, Pskov, and Smolensk provinces, and the creation of Leningrad and Western regions of the RSFSR. Thus, in February 1924, an Agreement was published on the final border of Smolensk province with the BSSR [30, p. 83]. In the second half of 1926—early 1929, territorial issues were discussed at the Politburo or Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee of the VKP(b) almost monthly, often postponed and transferred. For example, the question of the annexation of Gomel and part of Pskov province to the BSSR was considered in the Politburo from July to November 1926 six times [25, op. 3, d. 577, pp. 1, 4; d. 578, pp. 1—2; d. 579, p. 4; d. 586, p. 5; d. 587, p. 3; d. 590, p. 40]. The final decision was made on November 18: recognizing the Belarusian character of the inhabitants of Gomel and Rechitsa districts, they were annexed to Belarus, but the proposal to annex the Velizh district to it was rejected. The commissions were tasked with “establishing the exact borders of Belarus” [25, op. 3, d. 602, p. 4]. In our opinion, this provided grounds for the Politburo not to revisit the issue of clarifying the border between the BSSR and the RSFSR.

Border stability issues also concerned neighbors. At the combined plenum of the Gomel regional committee on December 1—2, 1926, with the participation of the secretary of the Central Committee of the VKP(b) N. M. Shvernik, secretaries of the Central Committee of the CP(b)B A. I. Krinitsky, I. A. Adamovich, territorial claims were also raised. The representative from Bryansk, Ryabov, expressed his wishes: “The Bryansk province, in connection with the transfer to it of three districts of Gomel, will significantly strengthen. With the transfer of two districts to Belarus, with the predominance of the Belarusian population, there is no dispute, but it is necessary to warn comrades from Belarus not to get carried away with such annexations, but to approach this issue fraternally.” Many local party leaders were concerned about the “prospect” of losing their “portfolios” in the emerging situation, as it was not just about annexation but the liquidation of the Gomel province.

A. I. Krinitsky assured that the directive of the Politburo of the Central Committee regarding the elimination of forced Belarusization would be observed, that the Gomel active had experience in work and there would be no restructuring. In his closing remarks, P. S. Zaslavsky said: “Moscow is the center of the world communist movement. By aligning with the Communist Party of Belarus, we do not turn our backs on Moscow, for the Communist Party of the BSSR stands exactly as facing Moscow, as we did before the annexation” [6, d. 2092, pp. 236, 238, 243, 246].

After the second enlargement, there was an attempt at a third enlargement in connection with the acceleration of the process of creating the Western region. Thus, in the report of the Central Committee of the CP(b)B to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the VKP(b) dated November 22, 1928, signed on behalf of the bureau of the Central Committee of the CP(b)B by I. A. Vasilevich and N. M. Golodeden, a request was made for the annexation of the Novozybkovsky and Klintsy districts of the former Gomel province and the Velizh, Nevelsky, and Sebezhsky districts of the former Pskov province (for these three districts, there was allegedly support from S. M. Kirov) “as economically homogeneous regions gravitating towards the BSSR and whose population is predominantly Belarusian” [29, p. 185]. We could not find a decision on this note. It evidently did not exist, as there were interests not only Belarusian but also all-union and interests of other regions.

In the RSFSR, the zoning process dragged on until 1929, as on its vast territory, after the creation of autonomous regions and republics, the issue of forming such large administrative units as regions—economic regions was very complicated. This is clearly seen in the example of the creation (from 1923 to 1929) of the Western region. From December 1928 to March 1929, contentious issues and disagreements related to “…the zoning of the unformed part of the territory of the RSFSR” were repeatedly discussed at meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the VKP(b) [25, op. 3, d. 720, pp. 1, 2]. Thus, on January 3, 1929, the deadlines for the creation (by October 1, 1929) of the Nizhny Novgorod, Western, Central Industrial (center in Moscow), and other administrative-territorial units were approved, but the request to approve Bryansk as the center of the Western region was rejected [25, op. 3, d. 720, pp. 2, 5, 7], which never had such status, as sometimes found in literature [1, p. 223]. A number of requests for the transfer of territories from one region of the RSFSR to another were also rejected. The decision to transfer the Velikiye Luki district (which included the Velizh, Nevelsky, and Sebezhsky districts) from the Leningrad region (created by the resolution of the Politburo on July 21, 1927) to the Western region was postponed several times, including at the request of S. M. Kirov (most likely not in the interests of Belarusians) [25, op. 3, d. 645, pp. 7—8; d. 731, pp. 1, 4; d. 732, pp. 1]. Considering that the Velikiye Luki district had a flax and livestock specialization, it was included in the newly created Western region, which was defined as agrarian. In the summer, corresponding resolutions were adopted, and the aforementioned regions began to function from October 1929. By the decree of the SNK of the USSR dated January 1, 1930, the RSFSR Economic Council was recommended to concentrate the production and processing of flax in the Western region. Territorial issues arose not only in the Belarusian-Russian borderland but also in other regions of the country, which should be linked to the objective and subjective interests of the local party-soviet elite. In creating new state units, new names were introduced, and new tasks were set. For example, in 1928, V. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky wrote about the use of the names “district” and “region” [27, p. 10]. After the XV Congress of the party, Chairman of Gosplan G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, in a secret note to the Central Committee of the VKP(b) dated December 29, 1927, outlined the state of affairs with zoning and the administrative structure of the USSR and expressed a number of considerations that were discussed in the Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee and were taken into account, in our opinion, in the creation of regions. He wrote: “Regional centers should be reviewed and outlined with the expectation that they will be a real concentration of economic and cultural life in the region in the plan for future development, be conveniently connected by communication routes with their districts and the center of the country, and have sufficient proletarian and qualified scientific personnel to lead the economic life of the region. In the absence of preparedness for such centers, temporary residence in other centers is allowed, with subsequent relocation as new ones are prepared” [25, op. 113, d. 586, pp. 29, 53]. This suggests that the disaggregation of regions was anticipated.

In 1928—1929, amendments were made to the Gosplan project (the division of the USSR into large economic regions). The Western region was divided into Belarus and the Western region. The division of Ukraine into two regions (South-Western, center—Kiev, and Southern Mining Industrial, center—Kharkiv) was not implemented to avoid complicating the administrative system [2, pp. 127—128, 136]. The borders of the Western region with the BSSR and the Ukrainian SSR were primarily determined by national criteria, although in economic terms, for example, the Western region and Belarus were quite close to each other [7, p. 190]. Zoning in the RSFSR was completed at the end of 1929, although the XV Congress of the VKP(b) recommended its implementation during the first five-year plan.

At a meeting with Ukrainian writers on February 12, 1929, I. V. Stalin noted that “…borders change very often. Belarus is currently raising the issue of annexing part of Smolensk province to them! This also meets resistance from the Russians. I think such a question should be resolved cautiously, without rushing ahead too much, to avoid developing negative resistance from one or another part of the population. This is also present at the grassroots level” [34, p. 112]. From the end of the 1920s and throughout the 1930s, no territorial-administrative changes concerning the Belarusian-Russian-Ukrainian borderland were conducted.

During the period of socialist construction and, above all, collectivization, the party-soviet apparatus was brought closer to the region and the village. A short-lived experiment with experimental-demonstration districts (in the BSSR, the Vitebsk district was singled out, which used the experience of reorganizing the district-regional management system of the Chelyabinsk experimental district) [5, d. 530, pp. 21—21, ob.] provided grounds to believe that they had fulfilled their role, and maximum operational efficiency and specificity in administrative-economic management should already be ensured by districts as nodal links. In this case, the region became the support point. At the XVI Congress of the party, I. V. Stalin said: “The consolidation of volosts and their transformation into districts, the abolition of provinces and their transformation into smaller units (districts), and finally, the creation of regions as direct support points of the Central Committee—this is the general view of zoning.” He set the task to “…abolish districts… connect district organizations directly with the region (regional committee, national Central Committee)” and noted that “…it would be a mistake to show excessive haste in abolishing districts. The Central Committee made the decision to abolish districts. But it does not think that this matter should be carried out immediately. Obviously, it will be necessary to conduct the necessary preparatory work before abolishing districts” [31, pp. 209—210]. The style of work of republican and local party-soviet bodies was already such that everyone eagerly began to implement the Central Committee’s decision. After the party congress, the Central Executive Committee (CEC) and the SNK of the USSR adopted a resolution (the same was done in the BSSR and the Ukrainian SSR), and in the fall of 1930, the districts were liquidated. Today, it is difficult to count how many personnel from the district level (up to 90% was expected) were transferred to the districts, but the “suitcase mood” and apathy were evident, and consequently, many questions arose with the consolidation of these personnel in the districts. Confirmation of this is the similarity of protocol No. 2 (without a decision being made) of the plenum of the Gomel regional committee of the CP(b)B dated September 19, 1930. These barely legible pencil notes on 1.5 pages (no other documents were identified. — M. S.) testify to an attempt to discuss the distribution of district committee workers to the districts after its liquidation [6, d. 698, pp. 146—146, ob.].

After the liquidation of the districts, the BSSR retained a two-tier system of local government. This complicated the management of districts, although they received the rights and functions of district committees. Almost 100 districts of the republic were managed from the center. Workers from the former districts were directed to strengthen the district Soviet and party bodies. The rights of village councils were expanded. Districts were also liquidated in the border strip along the western border of the USSR: 4 in the BSSR and 7 in the Ukrainian SSR, although, for example, materials (300 pages) about a three-year development plan for them were received from Ukraine in the sector of defense of the union Gosplan by December 1930 [26, d. 648]. Life and management practices revealed miscalculations, forcing the search for new solutions. In 1931, “partial re-zoning” was conducted, but in reality, this affected all districts, the number of which decreased from 98 to 75. In the second half of 1931, the presidium of the CEC of the BSSR issued a number of resolutions with clarifications and amendments to the district division. Ultimately, all these measures did not justify themselves. After three and a half years, the question of the territorial sizes of the districts arose again. Problems with the village and the lack of leaders for collective farms required the disaggregation of districts. In early 1935, 15 districts were created, including 13 from those liquidated in 1931. In the same year, along the western border of Belarus, 4 districts were restored, covering 24 districts out of 89 [13, pp. 68—71].

The district division also did not justify itself in Ukraine. The support administrative unit was introduced in the Ukrainian SSR in 1932. Six regions were formed, including on February 27—the Kyiv region (until September 22, 1937, it included all of Zhytomyr region. — M. S.), and on October 7—the Chernihiv region [33, pp. 389, 392]. At the XVII Congress of the VKP(b), the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CP(b)U S. V. Kosiory noted that when the districts were liquidated and direct leadership of 500 districts was transitioned, Stalin “…warned us that we would not cope with the leadership of such a large number of districts as in Ukraine and that it would be better to create regions in Ukraine. We then essentially dismissed this proposal… assured the Central Committee of the VKP(b) that we, the Central Committee of the CP(b)U, would manage the districts without regions, and this caused very significant harm to the cause. Now it even seems strange how one could take on direct leadership of such a large number of districts, especially in the difficult situation in Ukraine…” He further noted that the regions in Ukraine justified themselves, including in the implementation of collectivization, and this was a significant step forward [28, p. 198]. The organization of regions in the Ukrainian SSR, the disaggregation of some regions and territories in the RSFSR were classified by the Congress as significant events [28, p. 198, 670]. The Congress approved production-sector departments in the Central Committee of the party, regional committees (regional committees were listed second. — M. S.), territorial committees, and the Central Committee of national communist parties [28, pp. 672, 676], which indicated not only duplication but also an increase in control over Soviet-economic bodies.

Clearly, based on the experience of collectivization, the XVII Congress of the VKP(b) noted that the old division into industrial and agrarian regions had outlived itself. It was concluded that there was a need to develop grain farming in both southern and northern regions [28, p. 23]. In the second half of the 1930s, the disaggregation of regions and the creation of new ones were prompted by the necessity of industrial development of old and the mastering of new economic regions, leveling the economic level of the republics.

The analysis of sources allows us to note that frequent reforms of the administrative-territorial structure are not only an economy of resources, bringing the party-soviet power closer to the people, but also the emergence of the syndrome of “suitcase mood” among party-soviet personnel, caring for their well-being. At the session of the CEC of the USSR in January 1936, in a report on the national economic plan, V. M. Molotov pointed out that “…district centers require, at least, that they be provided with elementary cultural conditions: central and local newspapers, a good library, established radio and cinema installations, electricity. Then the leading personnel will be better consolidated in the districts.” Consequently, regional centers had the necessary conditions for consolidating the core of the party-soviet elite, which became the support of the party. The district administrative link was also strengthened.

The programmatic nature of the first Soviet constitutions did not provide for articles on the administrative-territorial structure. It was only in 1936, in the articles of the Constitution of the USSR, and later in the constitutions of the union republics that it was fixed. This had not only legal but also significant organizational and political importance. At the Extraordinary VIII Congress of Soviets, in a report on the draft Constitution, I. V. Stalin indicated that “…it is proposed to exclude from the articles… a detailed enumeration of the administrative-territorial division of the union republics into territories and regions. …this proposal is unacceptable. In the USSR, there are people who are ready with great eagerness and tirelessly to redraw territories and regions, thereby introducing confusion and uncertainty into the work. The draft Constitution creates a bridle for these people. And this is very good, because here, as in many other things, we need an atmosphere of confidence, we need stability, clarity” [32, p. 39]. In articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution, the regional division of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR was recorded, while article 29 stated that the BSSR and three other republics do not have such administrative units [11, pp. 732—733].

In the second half of 1937, the large regions were divided. The CEC of the USSR, which had the authority to make final decisions on these issues, approved the resolutions of the CECs of the republics. Thus, on September 22, the Kyiv region was divided into the Kyiv and Zhytomyr regions, while the restored border districts (Zhytomyr, Novgorod-Volynsky, and Korosten) created in 1935—1936 were liquidated [23]. The Western and Kursk regions were divided on September 27 into Smolensk, Oryol, and Kursk regions. The entire Bryansk region was included in the Oryol region [22]. The Bryansk region was created only in 1944. The BSSR lagged behind. It is not accidental, in our opinion, that in the republic, the issue of creating regions was operationally resolved in September 1937, when the acting first secretary of the Central Committee of the CP(b)B A. A. Volkov received materials on the creation of regions in the BSSR, prepared by the detained economist, academician of the BSSR Academy of Sciences I. A. Petrovich, on the instruction of B. D. Berman from the NKVD of the republic. Taking into account the placement of energy centers, industry, and specialization of agriculture in the BSSR, it was proposed to create 4 economic regions—the future Vitebsk, Gomel, Mogilev, and Minsk regions [19, d. 12 021, pp. 1, 6, 8—9, 11—12, 42]. The study of these documents gives grounds to believe that the principle of creating economic regions of the Western region of the early 1930s was taken as a basis, and the regional division was carried out according to the model of neighboring Ukrainian regions—Zhytomyr, Kyiv, and Chernihiv. In January 1938, 5 regions were created in the BSSR. The Polesie region was separated from the Gomel region with its center in the city of Mozyr, while the 4 border districts restored in 1935 were liquidated. Consequently, the Polesie border region was created not as Zhytomyr by separating from a larger one, but immediately by dividing the created Gomel region.

The disaggregation of regions received a positive assessment at the XVIII Congress of the VKP(b) (March 1939) when summarizing the overall results of zoning. In the report to the Congress, I. V. Stalin noted that “…in the system of leading party organs, there are… 104 regional committees…” [4, p. 28]. From the list of delegates, it is evident that they were already composed by regions [4, p. 666]. With the completion of the process of disaggregation and the creation of these support units, the main contact regions in BRUP in 1939 became: Vitebsk, Mogilev, Gomel, Polesie, Smolensk, Oryol, Chernihiv, Kyiv, and Zhytomyr. Overcoming difficulties, the Bolsheviks introduced the regional structure in the first two decades of Soviet power.

The young Soviet state dismantled the old system of local and regional governance, implementing administrative-economic zoning. The realities of the national-state development of the peoples of the former Russian Empire were taken into account; however, the economic principle became the basis for the new administrative division of all Soviet territories by structure: region, district, settlement, and rural councils, in which the political factor also played an important role. Thus, during the period under consideration, a new administrative-territorial unit was created—a non-autonomous region. It became the main administrative-economic and political unit in the system of not only the administrative-territorial structure but, in our opinion, throughout the administrative-command system, as it was the support of the party, not an independent and primary structural unit of local Soviet power, which from the mid-1930s began to mainly deal with local industry, housing and communal services, and cultural-educational spheres.

Literature

  1. Administrative-territorial structure of Russia. History and modernity. Moscow: OLMA-PRESS, 2003.

  2. Belousov, I. I. Fundamentals of the doctrine of economic zoning (placement and zoning of productive forces) / I. I. Belousov. Moscow: MSU, 1976.

  3. Vermenich, Ya. V. Administrative-territorial structure of Ukrainian lands / Ya. V. Vermenich // Encyclopedia of the History of Ukraine: in 5 vols. Vol. 1. Kyiv: Nauk. Dumka, 2003. P. 37—40.

  4. XVIII Congress of the VKP(b). March 10—21, 1939: stenographic report. Leningrad: Gospolitizdat, 1939.

  5. State Archive of Vitebsk Region.

  6. State Archive of Public Associations of Gomel Region.

  7. Davydov, E. Western Region. Population. Economic Essay / E. Davydov // BSE. Vol. 26. Moscow, 1933. P. 188—208.

  8. Twelfth Congress of the RCP(b). April 15—25, 1923: stenographic report. Moscow: Politizdat, 1968.

  9. Yegorov, K. Zoning and Soviet Construction / K. Yegorov // Pravda. 1925. August 22.

  10. Elizarov, S. A. The Western Region and Belarusian-Russian Territorial Issues (1920s) / S. A. Elizarov // Problems of Slavic Studies: collection of scientific articles and materials. Issue 3. Bryansk: BSU, 2001. P. 268—277.

  11. History of the Soviet Constitution (in documents) 1917—1956 / ed. A. A. Lipatov [et al.]. Moscow: Legal Literature, 1957.

  12. Karelin, E. G. Implementation of the zoning reform in the USSR in the 1920s (based on materials from the Western region of the RSFSR) / E. G. Karelin // Herald of Moscow State University. Series 8. History. 1991. No. 1. P. 60—71.

  13. Krutalevich, V. A. Administrative-territorial structure of the BSSR / V. A. Krutalevich. Minsk: Science and Technology, 1966.

  14. Lenin, V. I. Critical Notes on the National Question / V. I. Lenin // PSS. Vol. 24. P. 113—150.

  15. Lenin, V. I. Telegrams to G. L. Pyatakov / V. I. Lenin // Ibid. Vol. 51. P. 182—183.

  16. Lenin, V. I. To M. F. Vladimirskiy / V. I. Lenin // Ibid. Vol. 52. Moscow: Politizdat, 1965. P. 195.

  17. Lyubichankovsky, S. V. ”…The urgency of which is indisputable…” / S. V. Lyubichankovsky // Domestic Archives. 2009. No. 1. P. 95—104.

  18. Population of Russia in the 20th century: in 3 vols. Vol. I. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2000.

  19. National Archive of the Republic of Belarus.

  20. On the Organization of Local Self-Government: letter from the NKVD of the RSFSR dated December 24, 1917 // SUD of the RSFSR. 1917. No. 12. Art. 179.

  21. On the Procedure for Changing the Borders of Provincial, District, and Other: resolution of the SNK of the RSFSR, July 15, 1919 // SUD of the RSFSR. 1919. No. 36. Art. 356.

  22. On the Division of the Western and Kursk Regions into Smolensk, Oryol, and Kursk Regions: resolution of the CEC of the USSR, September 27, 1937 // SZ of the USSR. 1937. No. 66. Part 1. Art. 300. P. 616—617.

  23. On the Division of Kharkiv Region into Kharkiv and Poltava, Kyiv into Kyiv and Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia into Vinnytsia and Kamianets-Podilskyi, and Odesa into Odesa and Mykolaiv Regions: resolution of the CEC of the USSR, September 22, 1937 // Ibid. 1937. No. 63. Part 1. Art. 275. P. 565—569.

  24. Pichukov, V. P. Gomel Region is Multinational (1920s—1930s). Issue I / V. P. Pichukov, M. I. Starovoytov. Gomel: HGU named after F. Skorina, 1999.

  25. Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History.

  26. Russian State Archive of Economics.

  27. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, V. P. Regions and the Country / V. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky. Moscow; Leningrad: State Publishing House, 1928.

  28. XVII Congress of the VKP(b). January 26—February 10, 1934: stenographic report. Moscow: Partizdat, 1934.

  29. Skalaban, V. V. Enlargement of the BSSR—an Attempt of 1928 / V. V. Skalaban, M. I. Starovoytov // Materials of the International Scientific Conference / ed. R. R. Lazko (responsible ed.) [et al.]. Gomel: GDU named after F. Skorina, 2006. P. 184—187.

  30. Agreement between the Smolensk Regional Executive Committee and the BSSR // Economic Life. Organ of the Smolensk Regional Executive Committee and the Organizational Bureau of the Western Region. 1924. No. 1-2. P. 83—84.

  31. Stalin, I. V. Political Report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the VKP(b) / I. V. Stalin. Moscow: Politizdat, 1952.

  32. Stalin, I. V. On the Draft Constitution of the Union of SSR: report at the Extraordinary VIII All-Union Congress of Soviets on November 25, 1936 / I. V. Stalin. Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1951.

  33. Ukraine from Ancient Times to the Present: Chronological Reference. 2nd ed., revised and supplemented / V. F. Verstyuk [et al.]. Kyiv: Nauk. Dumka, 2005.

  34. Shapoval, Yu. I. Ukraine in the 20th Century: Persons and Events in the Context of a Difficult History / Yu. I. Shapoval. Kyiv: Genesa, 2001.