Новый исторический вестник, 2018, № 2 (56)

THE NEW HISTORICAL BULLETIN

№ 2(56)

2018

Москва 2018

РОССИЙСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ
ГУМАНИТАРНЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ

ИСТОРИКО-АРХИВНЫЙ ИНСТИТУТ

Журнал основан в 2000 г.

ГЛАВНЫЙ РЕДАКТОР
С.В. Карпенко

РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ

О.Г. Буховец, В. Голдман, 
Н.Т. Ерегина, В.П. Зиновьев, В.Г. Корнелюк, Н.Г. Кулинич, 
А.М. Пашков, А.А. Симонов, В.Л. Успенский, 
Д. Фильцер, Л. Чех
 
Ответственный секретарь П.Н. Лебедев
Переводчики О.Н. Судакова, К.Дж. Сторэлла
Обложка А. Надточенко

Выходит 4 раза в год

Адрес редакции: 
121433, Москва, Б. Филевская, 69-2-67
Эл. почта: nivestnik@yandex.ru
Сайт: www.nivestnik.ru

Подписной индекс по каталогу «Урал-Пресс»: ВН002537

© Новый исторический вѣстникъ, 2018 
© Редакция «Нового исторического вестника» 
ООО «Смелый дизайн», 2018 
© Издательство Ипполитова, 2018

RUSSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
FOR THE HUMANITIES

INSTITUTE FOR HISTORY AND ARCHIVES

Founded in 2000

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Sergey V. Karpenko

EDITORIAL BOARD

O. Bukhovets, L. Čech, N. Eregina, D. Filtzer, 
W. Goldman, V. Karnialiuk, N. Kulinich, A. Pashkov,  
A. Simonov, V. Uspensky, V. Zinoviev

Executive Secretary P. Lebedev
Translators O. Sudakova, C.J. Storella
Cover Designer А. Nadtochenko

Quarterly journal

Address: 
69-2-67, Bolshaya Filevskaya St., Moscow, Russia, 121433 

«Ural-Press» Catalogue Subscription Index: ВН002537

© Novyy Istoricheskiy Vestnik, 2018
© Novyy Istoricheskiy Vestnik Editorial Staff LLC 
“Smelyi Dizayn”, 2018 
© Ippolitov Publishing House, 2018

С О Д Е Р Ж А Н И Е

Российская государственность

Уколова В.И., Шкаренков П.П. Три Рима в российской
политико-культурной традиции: Дискурс угрозы и культурный
трансфер................................................................................................6

Попова А.Д., Попова О.Д. «Без свобод мы спокойны за нашу
жизнь»: Исторические истоки патернализма в российской
ментальности......................................................................................36

Борщик Н.Д. Из истории подготовки Второй всероссийской переписи
населения (1908 – 1916 годы)...........................................................54

Гусева Ю.Н. Трансграничные связи российских мусульман и их оценка 
советскими органами государственной безопасности в 1920-е 
годы ....................................................................................................69

Лиджиева И.В. Организация принудительного переселения калмыцкого 
народа в декабре 1943 года (по документам Информационного 
центра МВД по Республике Калмыкия) .........................................90

Россия и мир

Тепкеев В.Т. «Велено Кубань Его Царскому Величеству покорить или 
разорить»: Участие калмыков в Русско-турецкой войне 
1710 – 1711 годов..............................................................................103

Соколов А.Р. Русские в Варшаве в 1813 – 1815 годах: От Герцогства 
Варшавского к Царству Польскому.................................................121

Киличенков А.А. Танки конструкции Дж. Кристи и их судьба в США и 
СССР (1930-е годы).........................................................................139

Антибольшевистская Россия

Ипполитов С.С. Деятельность Российского общества Красного Креста 
на территории Украины, Кубани и Крыма в 1918 – 1920 годах ..............154

События и судьбы

Рычков И.А. Два капитана и их корабли: Из истории Волжского 
пароходства .....................................................................................168

C O N T E N T S

Russian Statehood

Ukolova V.I., Shkarenkov P.P. Three Romes in Russian Political and Cultural 
Tradition: Threat Discourse and Cultural Transfer................................6

Popova A.D., Popova O.D. “Without Freedoms We Are Contented with Our 
Lives”: The Historical Origins of Paternalism
in the Russian Mentality.......................................................................36

Borshchik N.D. From the History of the Preparation for the Second
All-Russian Census (1908 – 1916)......................................................54

Guseva Yu.N. The Cross-Border Relations of Russian Muslims and their
Assessment by Soviet State Security in the 1920s...............................69

Lidzhieva I.V. The Organization of the Forced Resettlement of the Kalmyk 
People in December 1943 (From Documents of the Information Center 
of the Kalmyk Republic Ministry of Internal Affairs).........................90

Russia and the World

Tepkeev V.T. «Commanded for the Kuban: Subjugate It to His Tsarist Majesty 
or Destroy It!»: Participation of Kalmyks in the Russian-Turkish War 
of 1710 – 1711...................................................................................103

Sokolov A.R. The Russians in Warsaw, 1813 – 1815: From the Duchy of 
Warsaw to the Kingdom of Poland.....................................................121

Kilichenkov A.A. John Christie’s Tanks and their Fate in the USA and the 
USSR in the 1930s.............................................................................139

Anti-Bolshevik Russia

Ippolitov S.S. The Activity of the Russian Red Cross Society in Ukraine, 
Kuban Oblast, and the Crimea, 1918 – 1920.....................................154

Landmarks in Human History

Rychkov I.A. Two Captains and their Ships: From the History of the Volga 
Shipping Company.............................................................................168

РОССИЙСКАЯ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОСТЬ
Russian Statehood 

V.I. Ukolova and P.P. Shkarenkov

THREE ROMES 
IN RUSSIAN POLITICAL AND CULTURAL TRADITION:
THREAT DISCOURSE AND CULTURAL TRANSFER*

В.И. Уколова, П.П. Шкаренков

Три Рима в российской политико-культурной традиции: 
Дискурс угрозы и культурный трансфер

Перевод М.А. Царевой**

The Russian political tradition is not limited to the political sphere 
per se. It always permeates into the polyphonic space of culture, into 
the spheres of the artistic word’s existence – poetry, literature, architecture, art, and mentality of the masses. Their interaction generates mythologemes, forms systems of images, semiotic series and concepts, reveals the deeper meanings of the phenomena that ensure the stability of 
the state and society, and, at the same time, enshrines stereotypes of behaviour and response to situations that have a political connotation. The 
political and cultural aspects conjoin, forming a single political and cultural tradition. It is characterized by iterative semantic orientations, and 
one of the most persistent of them is continuous recurrence to the “Russia 
and Europe” range of issues that are of key importance for historical and 
present-day Russian self-identification. Instead, European civilization, in 
all its historical modifications, drew on the experience of Ancient Rome 
as its foundation. This was pointed out by Immanuel Kant: “…if we pursue down to our own times its influence upon the formation and malformation of the Roman People as a political body that swallowed up the 
Grecian state, and the influence of Rome upon the Barbarians by whom 
Rome itself was destroyed; … we shall then discover a regular gradation 
of improvement in civil polity as it has grown up in our quarter of the 

*   Исследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда 
(проект №17-78-30029). = The research was financed with a grant from the Russian 
Science Foundation (Project No. 17-78-30029).
**   Translated by Marina A. Tsareva (Russian State University for the Humanities, 
Moscow).

globe [Europe. – Authors.], which quarter is in all probability destined to 
give laws to all the rest…”1
For European consciousness the Roman Empire was an example of 
civilized universalism, of opposition to barbarism and social chaos. In the 
Christian world, which grew from the Pах Romana, the image of Rome, 
the Eternal City, was also vested with special sacrality as the centre of 
establishment of the throne of St. Peter. To this day the Roman Empire, 
“resurrected” by Charlemagne, is at times perceived as the prototype of 
the European Union. Walter Schwimmer, former Secretary General of 
the Council of Europe, wrote: “This has parallels in the criteria governing European enlargement, in both the Council of Europe and the EU, i.e. 
‘acceptance’ of certain basic values, including pluralist democracy, the 
rule of law and human rights. Above all, belonging to the Empire brought 
security, enshrined in the Pax Romana.”2

* * *

The Old Russian state emerged in a territory where there was no Roman 
presence, unlike Western Europe aforetime. The Primary Chronicle, 
however, uses Rome as an important spatial reference point when describing the settlement of the Slavs. And the legend of St. Andrew the 
First-Called, who visited the would-be centres of the future Old Russian 
state, mentions that his visit and apostolic prediction of Russia’s glorious 
future happened when St. Andrew the First-Called was on his way to 
Rome, the centre of the emerging Christendom. Moreover, the apostle’s 
recital of the Slavic lands was announced in Rome and astonished those 
who listened to it.3 Only after that St. Andrew the First-Called continued 
his travel eastward to Sinop. In the Chronicle Rome is used as a certain 
historical reference point and as confirmation that the described events 
really happened. 
Old Russian statehood began to take shape in the 9th century. The 
landmarks are the year 862, when the Varangians were called to govern 
North Slavic lands, and the year 882, when Prince Oleg together with 
Rurik’s little son Igor came from Novgorod to the banks of the Dnieper 
and established his authority in Kiev. This created a vast communication space stretching from Novgorod to Kiev, where a new political entity, the Old Russian state, started to take shape. It was the result of the 
state-forming processes that had evolved during the preceding centuries 
in the East Slavs’ territories. The emergence of the Old Russian state 
fairly feeds into the general process of polytogenesis which took place 
in Europe in the early medieval period. In this process, three stages can 
be identified. The first stage, between the 5th and 7th centuries, was associated with the establishment of Roman barbarian kingdoms after the 
fall of the Western Roman Empire. The second stage was marked by the 
political ambitions of the Carolingians. Charlemagne undertook the first 
“German unification of Europe”. In 2000, Western Europe celebrated the 

1200th anniversary of the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor, who 
was later proclaimed “the father of Europe”. However, Europe’s new imperial entirety was not preserved.
In 843, Charlemagne’s grandchildren gathered in Verdun to partition 
the empire among them. On its debris there appeared the Kingdom of the 
West Francs and the Kingdom of the East Francs. The extensive strip of 
lands from the Netherlands to northern Italy went to the eldest grandson, 
Lothar, who inherited the title of Holy Roman Emperor. This laid the 
foundation of three future states – France, Germany and Italy. The fall of 
the Carolingian Empire signaled the transition to the third stage of early 
medieval polytogenesis pertaining to the emergence of a new generation 
of European states proper. In 835, the first Croatian state came into being; 
the year 842 saw the appearance of the Kingdom of Poland and the year 
894, the Czech Kingdom. In the first third of the 9th century the AngloSaxon kingdoms united under the rule of the King of Wessex. In the 9th 
century, during the Reconquista, the Kingdom of Asturias, which had 
emerged back in the 8th century, became firmly established in the north of 
the Iberian Peninsula. On the eve of the 10th century there appeared the 
Hungarian state. The second half of the 9th century also saw the birth of 
the Old Russian state. A synchronous process of active polytogenesis is 
obvious, and the formation of the Old Russian state was an integral part 
of the process. 
According to French historian Lucien Musset, “...Europe today still 
bears the imprint of that great creative period: it undoubtedly spawned as 
many states as the 19th and 20th centuries. In the very flexible framework 
that the then Christian world offered them, they could very quickly acquire the status of complete equality with the old kingdoms... And it was 
actually these young states, born in that period, that took on themselves 
and mitigated the shock from the next invasion, the Mongolian.”4
Of great importance for the formation of Old Russian statehood 
was the fact that it evolved in the area of the powerful influence of the 
Eastern Roman Empire. This empire was the only immediate successor 
of Ancient Rome’s historical experience which possessed indisputable 
rights of state, political, legal and cultural inheritance. It is no mere accident that Roman law was codified in the Eastern Roman Empire after the 
Western Roman Empire had fallen. Incidentally, beginning from the reign 
of Charlemagne, Europe had an increasing aspiration to catch up the right 
of “translatio imperii” from the Eastern Roman Empire. Charlemagne 
called the establishment of his state “renovatio imperii romanorum”. And 
in 962, German King Otto I, supported by the Pope, proclaimed the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. From the mid-16th century, European 
scholars tried to bury in oblivion the name “Eastern Roman Empire”, 
replacing it with the bookish construct “Byzantium”.
So, from its very inception Old Russia inevitably had to come into 
contact and interact with the Roman civilization in its orientalized version. Some Western philosophers, political analysts and historians still 

fault Russia for its “Byzantine heritage”. For instance, the well-known 
British philosopher Arnold Toynbee wrote, “The Russians have incurred 
the hostility of the West through being obstinate adherents of an alien 
civilization, and… this Russian ‘mark of the beast’ was the Byzantine 
civilization of Eastern Orthodox Christendom.”5
The fact that the rulers of the emerging Old Russian state were allured to Constantinople is quite understandable. At that time the Eastern 
Roman Empire was the best developed state, a country of very high culture. The magnificence of Eastern Rome was astounding and very attractive. The Primary Chronicle tells that the envoys of Prince Vladimir 
Svyatoslavich who attended a divine service in the Church of the Holy 
Wisdom in Constantinople were utterly delighted: “We do not know 
whether we were in heaven or on the earth.” The original desire of 
the Kiev princes was to enrich themselves by military campaigns on 
Constantinople. Princess Olga made an attempt to establish diplomatic 
relations with Constantinople at the state level. The choice of religion 
by Prince Vladimir determined Russia’s historical path and civilizational 
peculiarity.
 In the 10th century Christendom was not formally divided yet, though 
differences between the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern 
Constantinopolitan Church had a centuries-long prehistory. Nevertheless, 
“the Christian world” was conceived as a community of Christian nations. 
The Eastern Roman Empire positioned itself as the only preserver of true 
Orthodoxy, as the spiritual guide possessing the right to led the “Christian 
world”, contraposing itself to papal Rome. Russia adopted Orthodox 
Christianity from Byzantium. Christianity of the Byzantine pattern was 
more in line with the Slavs’ mentality and their psycho-emotional makeup. The adoption of Christianity stabilized Old Russian statehood and, in 
the long term, facilitated the unification of the nation. During the reign of 
Prince Vladimir it became obvious that Russia made an attempt to join in 
some way the Roman imperial tradition in its Eastern version. He entered 
a matrimonial alliance with Byzantine Porphyrogenitus Princess Anna. It 
was a great honour. For instance, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire 
Otto I failed to marry his son to a porphyrogenitus princess. He had to 
agree to a marriage of his son with a girl from a noble family who had 
only indirect relation to the imperial house.  Having become a son-in-law 
of the Byzantine emperor, Vladimir dared to mint the gold solid, whereas 
none of the European sovereigns at that time minted gold coins. It was 
the Byzantine emperor’s exclusive right. On the head side of the solid 
Vladimir was depicted wearing the Byzantine crown. 
While for Prince Vladimir the priority was the union with Byzantium, 
his son, Yaroslav the Wise, successfully developed relations with many 
European states. He expanded Russia’s contacts with the ruling houses 
of Europe. They were consolidated with dynastic marriages and marital 
unions with members of the most important European families. Take, for 
example, Yaroslav the Wise’s daughters: Anna became a French queen, 

Elizaveta married Norwegian King Harald Hardrade, and Anastasia 
was given in marriage to the Hungarian King. The Kiev Prince married 
his sister Maria to the Polish King, while his granddaughter Eupraxia 
(Adelgeida) married the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The Kiev 
court constantly received ambassadors from different countries of the 
West and East. Actually, in those remote times Russia, having joined the 
“Christian world”, defined its limits in the east of Europe, thus hereafter 
mapping its eastern geographic boundary.
At the same time, Yaroslav sought to strengthen his independence 
from Constantinople. He managed to secure that in 1051, for the first 
time in history, a Russian, not a Greek, became the Metropolitan of Kiev. 
Metropolitan Hilarion was the author of Sermon on Law and Grace, 
which was actually the beginning of the history Russian literature. This 
work can be defined as the first attempt to present Russia in the context of world history in Christian interpretation. Hilarion divides the entire history of the world into three periods: heathen (pagan darkness), 
Judaic (the Law of Moses) and Christian (attainment of truth according 
to the New Testament). Hilarion insisted after the appearance of Christ 
all peoples on the earth had become equal and therefore no nation could 
dominate another. However, the Judaic Law declined, “the Romans came 
and captured Jerusalem and destroyed it to its foundations.”6 It was the 
punishment for Jerusalem refusing to receive Christ. The Romans in this 
case were the ministers of God’s chastisement, though they worshiped 
idols. Hilarion denounced the “pagan” Rome.
However, his attitude to the Rome that had adopted Christianity was 
quite different. The author of Sermon on Law and Grace referred to that 
Rome, intending to give praise to Prince Vladimir: “Rome, with the voices of praise, praises Peter and Paul... We too, therefore, let us praise to 
the best of our strength, with our humble praises, him whose deeds were 
wondrous and great, the kagan of our land, Volodimer, the grandson of 
Igor of old and the son of the glorious Svyatoslav. When these reigned 
in their time, their renown spread abroad for their courage and valor, and 
still they are remembered, renowned even now for their victories and 
might. For they ruled not some feeble, obscure, unknown land, but in 
the land of Rus, which is known and renowned to the ends of the earth.”7 
Hilarion believed that the land of Russia was equal to Rome. 
In the late 9th century the political picture of Europe became particularly varied. This affected Old Russia, too, as its centre moved from Kiev 
to the North-East. In the 13th century, the geopolitical situation in the 
world underwent a radical transformation. The gains of Genghis-khan, 
the creator of the Mongolian Empire, and of his successors put an end 
to the existence of many eastern states from China to the Middle East. 
In 1237, the Mongolian invasion radically changed the fate of the fragmented Russia.
In 1241, the Mongols, having ruined the Principalities of Galich and 
Volynia in Russia, rushed to Europe. They moved in two avalanches 

– through Poland and Hungary. The Mongols reached the suburbs of 
Vienna and the Adriatic coast, leaving behind devastated lands and carrying death to the local people. However, in the deep rear of the Mongols 
there were vast Russian lands, ready to resist. The Mongols turned back 
and left Central Europe. Russia became the shield for the West, protecting it from those whom the Europeans took for the “forerunners of the 
Apocalypse”. Yet, German Emperor Frederick II, French King Louis 
IX, and the Roman popes began to seek ways to negotiated with the 
Mongols.8 Their attempts failed.
The See of Rome saw the Russian lands as a shield from the Mongols. 
Promising the Russian princes support in their fight with the Mongols, 
the Roman popes, however, demanded an exorbitant price – conversion to 
Catholicism. This is confirmed by the papal message to Prince Alexander 
Nevsky which read that if the Russian prince gave up Orthodoxy and entered the Roman Catholic Church, he would be held in special reverence 
among the other Catholic kings, i.e. he was promised an authoritative 
footing in the political space of medieval Catholic Europe. At the same 
time, the promise of support from the papal throne went in parallel with 
the fact that the popes blessed the onslaught of German knights to the 
East. North-East Russia found itself crucified between the West and the 
East. Alexander Nevsky strongly rejected the very possibility of renouncing Orthodoxy.
After the Schism of 1054, in the Russian lands there was an increasing 
antagonism against “Latinism” which was identified with the Catholic 
West and Rome. The antagonism was primarily of religious nature, behind which there was also an actual political content. This is clearly evident, for instance, in Life of Alexander Nevsky, where the West is called 
“a country of Roman faith” and the immediate enemies in the Battle of 
the Neva are called “Romans”. Alexander’s categorical response to the 
Pope’s envoys from great Rome [Our underlining.]: “We do not accept 
your teaching.”9 Is not only a statement of rejection of the alien teaching 
but also a political rebuff.

* * *

The 14th century saw the beginning of the Gathering of the Lands 
with the lead of Moscow, which strengthened its position in the alliance 
with the Horde. At the same time, in Slavic countries such as Serbia and 
Bulgaria there emerged ideas about a Slavic empire and even the Slavic 
“Third Rome”, which name was sometimes used for the city of Turnovo. 
It is not exceptional that echoes of these ideas could have been brought to 
the Russian lands by wandering monks. But it was not until the 15th century, when the prospect of getting out of submission to the Horde became 
realistic and that finally happened under Ivan III, that the need arose to 
comprehend and justify the growing independence of the new statehood 
and to choose ways for the development of the Moscow state. The idea 

of Russia being God’s chosen, excusive land was gaining strength and, 
what is more, not only in Moscow. Russian merchant Afanasy Nikitin 
of Tver wrote in his narrative A Journey Beyond Three Seas: “May God 
keep the Russian land safe! Oh God, save it!.. There is no other country 
in the world like it.”10 Orthodox Russia took heavily the conclusion of the 
Florentine Union in 1439, which placed the Orthodox Church in submission to the papal throne. Grand Prince Vasily II and the Russian clergy 
did not recognize the union, and Metropolitan Isidor who had signed it 
was deposed. After Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, Moscow felt 
itself to the last stronghold and defender of Orthodoxy, the successor of 
Constantinople as head of the truly Christian world. Moscow’s acceptance of the universal religious mission inherited from Constantinople, 
the Second Rome, coincided with Russia’s liberation from the Horde dependence and the process of state centralization, which evolved synchronously with the emergence of national states in Western Europe. 
In the last third of the 15th century, Europe was surprised to discover 
in its east a new vast and powerful state – the Moscow Principality, or 
Muscovy. Prominent Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky wrote: “The 
completion of the gathering of northeastern Russian lands by Moscow 
transformed the Moscow Principality into a great national state and thus 
assigned the Grand Prince of Moscow the status of the national Grand 
Russian Sovereign.”11 
The formation of the unified Moscow state took place synchronously 
with the emergence of centralized states in Western Europe. Thus, for 
instance, in 1477, French King Louis XI after the victory at Nancy annexed the Duchy of Burgundy, the last major stronghold of resistance to 
the national unification of France. In 1477, Ivan III marched forth against 
the rebellious Veliky Novgorod. In January 1478, Veliky Novgorod surrendered, and its independence was crushed. Its symbol, the veche bell, 
was taken down form the bell tower and transported to Moscow. This was 
followed by the “great stand” on the Ugra River and the final liberation 
from the Horde dependence, and also by the siege of Tver in 1485 and its 
transfer to the power of the Grand Prince of Moscow. In the same year of 
1485, the War of the Roses ended in England. Henry VII Tudor ascended 
the royal throne, and his rule signaled the transition of England to a new 
form of state government – absolutism.
In the state-building process Ivan III relied not only on the church 
and religious experience of the Second Rome, but also on its state and 
political knowhow, supporting it with his marriage to a member of the 
Byzantine imperial family. Ivan III started the “return” of the Moscow 
state to Europe. This is confirmed by diplomatic correspondence with the 
Habsburgs, treaties with the Baltic states, the steads, Poland and Moldavia. 
The international recognition of the Moscow state is evidenced by the fact 
that “...the Grand Prince of Moscow – even before the formal ceremony 
of coronation is introduced in Russia! – can be called emperor: from the 
late 15th century Grand Prince Ivan III is called so in the treaties with