Home – Home – Jornals – Humanitarian sciences in Siberia 2017 number

Was the Russian revolution at the beginning of the XX century an accident or did the crisis occur due to economic reasons? The traditional answer to this question states that the revolution was caused by the low living standard, poverty and constantly repeated hunger strikes. Peasant land scarcity and poverty were described by the greatest economists of the pre-revolutionary period. Soviet historians also considered the level of consumption in Russia to be extremely low, and, moreover, gradually dropping. Such position was originally inherent also to Western historiography, but in the 1970s, in the “cold war” climate a “revisionist school” appeared in the United States, whose representatives argued that the standard of living in Russia had been increasing, that the revolution was an accident. The article is devoted to criticism of the revisionist school works. The most famous representative of this school is P. Gregory, who estimated that the cost of grain left by farmers for their own consumption, increased by 51 % in 1885-1901. This result is referred to by many authors. However, the detailed analysis shows that in Gregory`s calculations there are a number of mistakes and in fact the growth was only 12 %, and in per capita terms there was a decrease of this indicator. The largest revisionist school representative in Russia is B.N. Mironov, who made an attempt to assess the level of food consumption at the beginning of the XX century. In addition to these calculations, the main Mironov’s argument is supposedly fixed by his computations increase of recruits in 1874-1913 years. However, in these Mironov’s calculations also a mistake was detected, and it turned out that in reality the growth of recruits decreased. Thus, the works of the revisionist school representatives do not give an adequate idea of the living standard in Russia on the eve of the revolution.

February of 1917 in Siberia, like in Russia, showed no signs of any powerful cataclysm. Law enforcers (gendarmes, policemen) stated that in the territory under their jurisdiction “anti-governmental organizations showed no signs of activity...” Information about the events in Petrograd was spread via telegraph across the cities, railway stations, settlements, villages and volosts located along the Omsk, Siberian, Transbaikal, Altai, Kolchugino railroads. Governors were dismissed fr om their positions along with commanders of the Omsk and Irkutsk districts, garrison commanders, while the gendarme officers were arrested. Dismissal of tsarist authorities was paralleled by establishment of various public committees (Committees of Public Security), Soviets of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies, organizations of political parties (RSDRP, PSR, PNS). Local government bodies at the provincial, oblast and uyezd levels were headed by Commissars appointed by the Provisional government. For the most part they were appointed from among the most respected and active members of local communities and leaders of Committes of Public Security. In early March, 1917 the most active social groups included the middle-income urban dwellers, the military, workers and political exiles. They played a dominant role in the political process constituting the social basis for the Committees of Public Security and Soviets as well as for political organizations. By the early 1917 owing to the system of political exile teams of highly professional political technologists had been formed in many Siberian cities wh ere they actively worked later on. The outcomes of the initial stage of the February social cataclysm were summed up on March, 10, 1917, the so-called Revolution Day. It was marked by public prayers, military parades, mass demonstrations and gatherings. Thus, events during the first week of March, 1917 affected only a small part of population, mostly in cities.

The problem of the interconnection of February Revolution and the province may be considered in two ways: first, as a process, begun in the capital and spread all over the country, and, secondly, as a process of change in the provincial life in the period from February to October 1917. Use of facts from different regions provides a kind of “virtual” province, sort of “non-capital”, however, it has nothing to do with any of the existing provincial governovates. The author believes it can be useful to look at the issue locally, within one single territory - Orenburg province. The author is of the second opinion; no ascendancy of the revolution in the province was observed: no one wanted to replace the authorities forcibly, the “old” power was held firmly enough, and could have been able to repel any attempts. The population of the province apprehended the transition to power of the Provisional Government rather calmly. Transformation of absolute monarchy into a constitutional could not be a revolutionary change as it had been harmonically blended into the existing state system. The changes were limited to renaming - governors to provincial commissioners, the police - the militia, and the removal of certain officials. In general, the information picture of the region was a complex ever-changing mosaic with elements of guessing of the missing elements. Analysis of the evidence and facts of social activity in the region shows that in a few months the provincial life was dominated by (mainly in the countryside) the delusional belief about the disappearance of the state in general, with its management structure and order, law and responsibility for the committed crimes. As the result there was an increase of criminal acts, both quantitative and qualitative. The situation got out of control, the feeling of “inner liberation” strengthened within the masses and it was not about the emancipation of the individual, but more about rudeness, aggressiveness, violence. All these far-reaching effects were especially evident during the civil war.

This article is devoted to the episode of Russian-British cooperation during the First World War, specifically the British Military Equipment Section under the command of General Poole. Analysis of activity of Poole’s mission is based primarily on preserved documents within collection of the Records of the Cabinet Office held by the National Archives of the UK. Main documents are the reports which were sent by General Poole and his closest aide Colonel Byrne to Committee of Russian Supply in London (the so-called Lord Milner’s Committee). Unfortunately these reports don’t clarify some important aspects of daily operations of the mission but they are an excellent illustration of the perception of Russian reality in 1917 by the representatives of the British military and political elite. The British military supply mission had to verify, in the first place, the proper use of weapons and ammunition from the United Kingdom and, in the second, had to help in establishing closer contacts between industrial businessmen of the two states. General Poole and his team observed work of the artillery parks and aviation workshops as well as the defense facilities. According to the British officers all of them suffered from common problems. Revolutionizing of the masses diverted many people from work, contributed to the fall of the discipline, and was accompanied by the reluctance of the military and civilian officials to do anything for normalizing the situation. Both tasks of the mission were failed. The first reason was the gradual collapse of the front and army work in the rear, and the second was the Bolshevist pursuit to conclude the peace with Germany. General Poole and Colonel Byrne were both skeptical about Russia’s ability to continue the war. In the beginning of 1918 the Poole’s team tried to prevent the looting of British goods in Russian ports. The collapse of the Russian state and economic mechanisms was the great trouble for British politics because the fall of the Eastern Front could not be allowed. Poole’s mission was a stage of preparation of the British intervention in Russia.

The article is devoted to N.N. Pokrovsky, who rose through the ranks from junior researcher to the academician in Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences in less than 30 years, who became one of the main authors of “archaeographic discovery of Siberia”, and who created his own scientific school. The period under consideration was a time of intensive development of the Siberian region and its science, in particular humanities. The article discusses principles of scientific and organizational activities of N.N. Pokrovsky in the course of solution of major scientific projects. The main goal for him was to save and study a large quantity of books, which were in the hands of old believer peasants and which disappeared each year because of the fires, death of owners and so on. Annual expeditions in most regions of Siberia, Central Asia and the Far East served this goal. Under his leadership there were then collected about a thousand ancient manuscripts and early printed books that made up continuously growing Collection of the Institute of History of Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SB RAS). Another principle of his activity was to investigate museums, archives and libraries of Siberia in order to describe their collections of ancient manuscripts and books according to a single system as well as to publish such descriptions that were to serve a preservation of collections. Soon after his arrival in Novosibirsk, N.N. Pokrovsky put forward an idea of creating a museum of history of Siberia common to all research institutions of Novosibirsk Akademgorodok, and of constructing for it a new building with modern technical conditions for the organization and operation of the museum. The project was presented by him in a special memorandum “On the Establishment of the Scientific and Historical Museum of Siberia and Gathering Monuments of Ancient Culture by Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences”, proposed for publication. Here, he introduced the prospects of research and scientific and organizational activities for gathering, preserving and exhibiting objects of Siberian culture, focused on their saving and popularization, the use of exhibits and expeditionary collections for training purposes in cooperation with Novosibirsk State University (NSU).

In 1854, the tsarist government created a unique administrative unit called “Semipalatinsk inner district” withing the new Semipalatinsk region. It was proposed to gather all the loyal Kazakhs wandering in the Tomsk and Tobolsk provinces. In 1870, 779 Kazakh farms openly expressed their consent to pay the three-ruble tax for plants. The Ministry of Finance conceded to the Cabinet half of the nomad tax set on October, 21, 1868 by “Regulations on the governance of steppe areas”. After long bureaucratic negotiations in 1880 “Rules for permission of Kyrgyz migrations on the lands of the Altai Mining District” were approved. According to the Rules Kazakhs were only allowed migrating on the lands of the Kulunda Steppe in Tomsk area. Thus, an attempt was made to gather all the Kazakhs wandering in the vast territory of the Altai Mining District, Tomsk and Tobolsk provinces in a specially alloted area. Kulunda Kazakhs, as well as the local farmers, had to pay 6 rubles (4.5 - to the Cabinet, and 1.5 - to the state). Local Ka-zakhs had no right to donate their lands for rent to third parties. Kazakhs, who wished to go transfer the peasant class, were allowed to pay cash rents in the amount of 6 rubles. Kulunda Kazakhs undertook to pay extra taxes for using wood. Kazakh residence at the Kulunda Steppe territory was recognized as temporal one and the Cabinet could evict them with its decision. In 1880 Kulunda Kazakhs, as well as loyal or “stanitsa” Kazakhs in the end of XVIII - early XIX centuries, were left without their governance in Tomsk province. But an attempt to gather all the Kazakhs of Tobolsk and Tomsk province in the Kulunda Steppe failed.

The article tries to define Mongolian neighbouring influence on Transbaikal economic structure and rates of development in the stated period. Mongolian involvement in Russian and later in Soviet sphere of interest had little effect on the development of the region which lagged far behind the economic modernization stage. Chinese (Sinhai) revolution and independence of Mongolia were of great interest to Russia: the Government was aware of the importance of Mongolia in realization of Russian political and economic interests in the Far East. The role of the starting point in Russian plans to defeat other rivals in Mongolian affairs was given to Kyakhta’s railway branch, which was supposed to be constructed from frontier Kyakhta to Trans-Siberian Railway with the aim to lay it through Mongolia to Beijing. The possible loss of European Russian industrial areas during World War I made the Tsarist Government pay attention to Asian markets. After the Civil War and foreign intervention strengthening of Eastern regions on the advanced economic development basis once again appeared to be one of the prime goals of the new Soviet power. The economic reconstruction after emergency situations and further achievements were to demonstrate advantages of Socialism to peoples of the East and thus to involve them into the Soviet sphere of economic, political and ideological influence and to serve as the world revolution base in the Buddhist East. Besides geopolitical, military-strategic and ideological circumstances, the importance of close cooperation between Buryatia and Mongolia was determined by economic reasons. Firstly, Mongolia was considered as a perspective product market. Secondly, Mongolia with its rich cattle-breeding industry could be a very important supplier of the Republic processing industry. In spite of political transformations, the Soviet State economic strategy in Buryatia in 1920s had a vividly expressed “Mongolian colour”.

The purpose of the article is to characterize the process of forming the system of memorable sites associated with the Revolution and Civil War in Western Siberia cities in 1920s. The study expands understanding of the memorial public policy at the initial stage of Soviet history, relationship between the collective memory of Siberians about the revolutionary process and the Civil War in the region and an official memorialization of military-revolutionary events. The author explains in what way the context of the memorial public politics was reflected in objects selection, which were recognized as memorial in the given years, as well as their political mythologizing and symbolic marking. The article reports on the role of memories of the military-revolutionary events participants, who lived in Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Barnaul and Omsk, in forming the official Revolutionary Military topography of cities, and the role of employees of Istparts and local history museums collecting these memories, and designing the system of memorial sites on their base. Most often revolutionaries and undergrounders recalled places, where the change of the government was announced publicly in the city, or places where the new power structures, safe houses and other places of secret and open political protest activities were located. Many sites were related to the memory of the Civil War victims: prisons, places of torture, execution and burial of the dead. The forms of applying identified memorial sites for ideological purposes are established. Stories associated with these places were published in periodicals, photos of the places were used in the exposition and exhibition activity of municipal museums, tours to the places were planned. Finally, the author came to the conclusion that the formed system of memorable sites reflected in Siberians minds a subjective, emotional and fragmentary memory of military-revolutionary events in regional cities. A unique regional narration about the Revolution and Civil War was created where heroes of local history dominated. However, this tendency practically did not develop in the following decade.

The paper considers information reports of District departments of the Joint public political administration (OGPU) of the Ural region for 1924 both as the documents included in the system of information and analytical activities of law enforcement agencies and as a historical source. Within the source study research historical conditions of emergence of a source are analyzed, the characteristic to authors is given, circumstances of creation of the document are described, the analysis of content and interpretation of a source is performed. The conclusion about compilation nature of reports which performed functions both of informing and a report for superior organizations is drawn. In the course of data movement from informants to district representatives, and then from district department to regional management, information was significantly transformed (contracted and eliminated). Practically all aspects of production, public and everyday life of citizens got to the sphere of attention of OGPU that allows to use data as a source for studying of a wide range of problems. In particular, the social structure of the early Soviet society is considered in the reports, as well as loyalty of separate social groups to RCP(b), Soviet authorities and Red Army. The source includes the direct speech of citizens in a statement of informants, gives an idea of rumors which circulated among inhabitants. Contents of reports allow to consider the main tendencies of development of the early Soviet society, such as laicisation, social mobilization, democratization (Sovietization), technological progress (with emphasis on the idea of recovery of economy to pre-war level), an urbanization and educational development.

During the Stalin’s period, there were the facts of inter-regional competition in the USSR. The first such cases were dating back to the 1920s and concerned with the attempts to overcome the uneven territorial economic development of the USSR, which was due to the concentration of the major part of the country’s productive forces in the South economic region (the Ukraine’s Donbass). The Soviet government made an attempt to soften these disparities by developing the industry of the Urals (the Ural-Kuzbass project). The Ural-Kuzbass project faced strong criticism from the representatives of the Ukraine who were not ready to abandon the investments into their own industry for the benefit of the Urals and West Siberia. In 1930, in spite of the Ukraine’s resistance, the central authorities under personal influence of Stalin approved the construction of the Ural-Kuzbass project. The new phase of the competition between the South and the Urals started during to the Great Patriotic War. During the warfare and occupation, the Donbass’ industry was demolished, while the Ural-Kuzbass had become a strategic base of the Soviet military industry, and that led to a substantial increase of its enterprises’ role in the structure of the country’s economy. Supporters of the further development of the eastern territories of the USSR (including the Urals) attempted to take an advantage of that situation. There were proposals to restrict the scales of resurrection of the Ukrainian industry and to concentrate resources in favor of the further development of the industry of the Urals and the whole Soviet East. Those ideas did not find support in the central government, and after the war, the industry of the Ukraine was restored in full-scale. After the war, rivalry between the Urals and the Soviet western territories (primarily the Ukraine) continued in the form of contest for keeping the earlier evacuated skilled manpower and scientific & design organizations on their new spots, for capital resources and care of the central ministries and departments. There are also the reasons to claim that there was a competition between the Urals and the USSR’s North-West (Leningrad). The obvious instance was the debates around the realization of the Ural-Pechora project.

In the article two unique documents are introduced in scientific circulation the first time. The first is Memorandum of Leonid Brezhnev for Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) Central Committee dated August 28, 1982 devoted to the development of grain farming. The second is the Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee dated September 2, 1982 as a result of the discussion of this memorandum. The article describes a retrospective analysis of the grain problem in the Soviet Union, which escalation occurred in the late 1970s - early 1980s. The gross grain harvest decreased these years, but imports increased significantly. This was the reason for preparing the memorandum, which contained an assessment of the state of grain farming and proposals for the industry crisis management. Brezhnev believed that the main cause of low production were frequent crop failures, because of which USSR was forced to import grain. According to Brezhnev, the scale of using fertilizers, equipment, agriculture technology, adoption of optimal crop rotations, the expansion of crops enriching soils with nitrogen, especially alfalfa, should encourage to increase grain production and reduce imports. He offered to purchase new technology equipment in France to establish seed production of alfalfa. Actions to improve fodder production were also defined in the document. One of them was increase of soybean crops necessary for obtaining feed with protein content. It was required to organize purchase of soybeans and products of processing abroad before market saturation by means of own production. According to Brezhnev, imports of soybeans and technologies of alfalfa seed production were essential measures to let the country refuse from crops import. Reducing the crop import had to contribute increasing the capacity of feed industry. In conclusion the author emphasizes that the implementation of measures proposed in the memorandum didn’t solve the grain problem in the USSR.

Nowadays changes in the national museum world are caused by both economic conditions and society demands for historical, national and cultural landmarks, desire for self-identity. The dynamics of the museum world changes put questions of managing the heritage, including the theoretical ones - the problems of interpretation, authenticity, scientific content, historicism. Solving these problems is the most important element in organizing the process of the community self-reflection. The topics, to which museums intently refer since 2000s and that determine nowadays basic museum discourse are those of the world system of life arrangement: land, family/personality, order. In each of the above mentioned topics the urge for searching and preserving identity, using those cultural accumulations that actualize traditional values as opposed to transient novelty prevail. This subject-matter drastically determines the specifics and quality of the decisions that museums offer to their audience. All museum profile groups and types reflect designated processes one way or another, but in some of them it is the most bright and concentrated. Primarily these are museum complexes combining the characteristics of two or more profiles and types. Essential shifts in the nature of activity and conceptions of development of museum-reserves, local lore and memorial museums mainly occur. Only scientifically valid criteria for selecting artifacts and objects for museumification and objective view of historical and cultural processes can facilitate creation of vivid, emotionally charged and authentic field of historical memory. Just the problem of scientific selection, criticism and interpretation of sources becomes the most actual one in the modern museum practice, and especially in the work with diverse objects of multicultural heritage. Here a significant role belongs not only to museums but also to the society that is able to self-reflecting about what exactly should be preserved and passed to future generations.

The active process of national cultures revival led to the creation of ethnic-cultural associations in the country. This article analyzes the reasons for forming national cultural centers and identifies ways of public associations. Topical presentation and study of ethno-cultural associations were outlined in the structure of Kazakhstan People Assembly. From the scientific heritage point of view, it shows the contribution of ethnic-cultural centers in preservation and development of language, traditions, customs and national culture. Kazakhstan realized in practice the principles of tolerance, harmony and tolerance, which became the fundamental public policy priorities. Kazakhstan has created a unique socio-political institution - the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan. Because of research activities of the Assembly it was concluded that ethno-cultural associations are one of the tools of civil consolidation of different ethnic groups and society as a whole, that the friendship of nationalities and national unity is a basic condition for Kazakhstan’s progressive development in the world. The Assembly of People of Kazakhstan - this is the united people of Kazakhstan. The preservation of peace, harmony and stability in the civil harmonious society is one of the most important achievements for the independent state. These sacred values have become fundamental to all citizens of Kazakhstan. In difficult conditions, the Assembly was able to create an optimal model of relations among all ethnic groups of the population. It is based on mutual understanding and tolerance, patriotism and civic responsibility for the destiny of the country and representatives of all ethnic groups. The author has discovered a vast volume of very interesting experience of ethno-cultural associations. Thus, ethnic-cultural associations as the Assembly of Kazakhstan People structure are active members of civil society in its consolidation.

In this article, the landmarks of the professional biography of History Professor W. Sliwowska, a prominent Polish researcher, should be considered. For more than a half a century she has been being actively integrated into the Soviet and the Russian historical studies. Professor Sliwowska has made an important contribution to the academic research in Russia. In Russia, she is known as a great scholar and a longstanding co-chair of the Russian-Polish Commission of the Historians of Russian and Polish Academies of Science. Professor Sliwowska plays an important role among the Russian intelligentsia. Her scientific heritage belongs equally to both Poland and Russia. Professor Sliwowska is an expert on the history of the 19^th century, on the political exile, on the socio-political movement and on the Russian-Polish relations. She is the author of monographs and bio-bibliographical dictionaries, translations, book reviews, documentary publications. Moreover, she is the founder of the school of thought in Poland. Many years she has led an academic department at the Institute for the History of Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The article presents an overview of the main research works and the concepts of W. Sliwowska. Her academic plans, her unique methodology of the historical research, and her social position should be discussed. The Name of Professor Sliwowska is indissolubly linked with the revival and the flourishing of the historical studies in Poland after the World War II. For the modern Historians, she is a great example of devotion to the studies and beliefs. By her works, she maintains the high level of the Polish historical school of thought. Professor Sliwowska takes a stand against vulgarization and politicization of the historical research, especially in the matters of penal servitude and exile. She criticizes the simplified, mythologized and ideologized approaches to the problem, which negatively affect the academic objectivism of research. Wiktoria Sliwowska is one of the most prominent and respected Polish Historians in Russia. Nowadays, her scientific and social heritage is being actively studied and popularized in Russia.

The objective of the article is to review the biographic information and administrative activities of the commanders of military units of the Siberian fortified defense line, to research their contribution to ensuring the secure environment for the peoples of the Southern Siberia and adjacent territories as well as to the economic and cultural development of the region. The author has shown that the majority of the Siberian defense lines commanders was made by the descendants of immigrants from the former German lands, representatives of Baltic-German nobility who switched to the Russian service during the Great Northern War and successfully integrated into the Russian multi-ethnic society. By virtue of their origin, education, special training they were not only good performers of government policies, but also agents and leaders of many European innovations in Siberia being its “cultural avant-garde” Y.M. Lotman. Due to their knowledge and experience gained in military campaigns and during the construction of fortifications in the Caucasus, the descendants of the former German knights and other military experts were successfully solving complex tasks while participating in the process of the unified system of Russian defensive lines’ creation and made a significant contribution to the economic and cultural development of the border area and Siberia in general. Their activity significantly intensified exploration and colonization of the vast region, facilitated safe living conditions there, and also led to the advanced production methods, new management culture, literacy, religious tolerance among the local population and, thus strengthening Russia’s influence on the southern borders of Siberia and adjacent territories.

The formation and development of the regional literary culture have always been greatly determined by the reader. At the turn of the 20^th century most of the reading public in Tomsk, as well as in Russia in general, were children. To study this readership it is very important to use informal sources that give much information about the individual perception of childhood as well as the child’s reading interests and needs. Among such sources is the children’s home library. Tomsk Regional Local Lore Museum Archive contains two inventory lists of editions that, judging by reader’s marks, uniform underlining and the owner’s autograph note, belonged to the library collected in Tomsk in the 19th - early 20th centuries by Vadim Efimov, who apparently was an educated man, preoccupied with questions of home education and competent in matters of pedagogy and youth literature. The editorial and publishing preparation of books in Efimov’s library demonstrates his good taste and consistency. The selection of books for the youth readership indicates that the library was focused on both male and female adolescents. Much of the collection consisted of works by foreign or Russian authors. Foreign literature was represented by modern fiction that was popular among children of that time and was included in the recommendation lists for family reading. Russian literature was represented by series of sentimental, moralistic and realistic stories. Efimov paid special attention to the works by Lidia Charskaya, which emphasizes the non-regulatory character of the home library, the freedom of the collector who wants to please the young reader. Due to the lack of special literature for children in various branches, the works on history and military arts were to widen the young reader’s scope of knowledge in history, while travelogues and essays on travel - in geography. The belles-lettres department of the library also included the works of Russian “adult” classics (Pushkin, Lermontov) published for children, so the entertaining popular literature was complemented by classics, prose - by poetry. The library also contained many popular scientific-educational editions mainly on geography and natural science. The books were selected so that the reader could get encyclopedic knowledge about the world in its system and relationships. It is not by chance that Efimov’s collection included the children’s fundamental encyclopaedic edition published by I.D. Sytin, which was considered best for that time. Finally, the library contained a number of binders of illustrated magazines. The analysis of the children home library in Tomsk reveals the attitude of the intellectual collector to the problems of home education, as well as gives information about the adolescent’s range of reading interests in Tomsk in the late 19th - early 20th centuries.

The problem of the role of Siberia in the First World War of 1914-1918 received less attention than the war political aspects or the combat operations course, including the participation of Siberian divisions. Due to the fact that Siberia was a rear region this role was reduced to conscript and train the replenishment for the army. At the same time, soldiers in the rear often committed various wrongdoings followed by punishment, as well as at the front. Apart from unauthorized absences and disrespect to the seniors, usual for all kinds of troops, there were specific ones manifested during replenishments delivery to the front. The issue of disciplinary problems in the army were somehow elucidated in a large number of historical studies, and adequately disclosed both in the whole Russia, and particularly with regard to the front-line situation. The most studied type of violation, without any doubt, was the desertion. However, the situation in the rear did not cause the same interest among researchers. The article objective is to characterize disciplinary and other misconducts of Siberian recruits and penalties for them evidently for soldiers of the chosen battalion (regiment), as well as to identify factors contributed to disciplinary violations committed in the unit. The study is guided by the principles of fairness and historicism, and apply scientific techniques of cognition (methods of analysis and synthesis, etc.). The article marks factors that contributed to the development of disciplinary problems in the rear, which are the officers’ staff, deferred sentences, specific features of the military legislation in the rear. It also presents the assessment of the regiment command activity, the situation has been recognized as satisfactory.