Novaya i Novejshaya Istoriya

The dominance of the systemic approach in the study of international relations contrasts with persistent methodological challenges and disruptions in systemic perspectives regarding the dynamics of various iterations of world order. In addition to ongoing discussions of traditionally recognised systems, it should be noted that there is a lack of analysis concerning other types of systems characterised by chaotic development and short-term existence. There exists an ample body of material for studying processes on the international stage beyond the frameworks of the commonly distinguished “stable” systems (such as Vienna, Versailles, etc.). Periods of global conflict, particularly the world wars of the twentieth century, are notably rich in deformations and diverse developmental projects. A particularly instructive case for the development and testing of a methodology for the systematic analysis of failed systems is the 1918 attempt to establish the Brest system, based on German hegemony in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and subsequently in the broader post-imperial spaces of Eurasia. To address existing gaps, it is essential to develop a systematic methodology for historical research, one that safeguards against the influence of various non-academic factors. Resolving this methodological issue will facilitate a “reset” of numerous debates and enhance our understanding of the patterns governing the development of international relations systems under varying conditions, as well as their typology and forecasting potential.

This article examines the attitudes of the government and senior naval officers towards the sailors who participated in the 1625 Cádiz expedition, the first stage of the Anglo-Spanish War of the mid-1620s. The onset of this conflict, marking the end of two decades of peace, necessitated the mobilisation of a large number of sailors and the provision of supplies for a military campaign. The history of naval forces during this period has predominantly been approached through “heroic”, “administrative”, and “institutional” perspectives. However, there remain significant gaps in the study of the “history of the common sailor”. This article seeks to explore the perception of sailors by the government and naval leadership as a crucial resource during the first year of the war, with the outcome of the Cádiz expedition – arguably a decisive moment – having profound implications for the course of the entire conflict. Official letters, drawn from state archives, provide the primary source material, alongside personal documents, notably the journal of Admiral Edward Cecil’s secretary. The analysis concludes that a significant number of inadequately trained individuals were forcibly enlisted into service. While most did not perish in battle, many succumbed to cold, hunger, and disease. The view of sailors as expendable assets by the government and naval commanders emerged as one of the principal factors behind the failure of the Cádiz expedition, a failure that had far-reaching consequences for the war’s subsequent trajectory.

The St Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences houses the collection of the Russian Committee for the Study of Central and Eastern Asia in its historical, archaeological, linguistic, and ethnographic dimensions (F. 148), comprising 110 units (1 inventory) from 1900 to 1923. The activities of the Russian Committee are significant not only for the history of international Oriental studies in the first quarter of the twentieth century but also for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of Russian academic policy during the late imperial period. In this regard, an analysis of the Committee’s documents is of interest not only to Orientalists and scholars of international relations but also to historians of science, state academic policy, and the relationship between the state and various scientific and cultural institutions. The collection includes documents on the establishment of the Committee, its charter and membership lists, minutes of meetings, and correspondence with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to which the Committee was affiliated. Additionally, it contains financial records, including estimates and materials related to the funding of expeditions, excavations, and the publication of research findings. Of particular interest is the correspondence with academic institutions and individual scholars, as well as materials on the organisation of expeditions and academic missions. A substantial portion of the documentation pertains to the organisation and conduct of Sergey Oldenburg’s Xinjiang expeditions of 1909–1910 and 1914–1915, which represent one of the most significant – if not the most important – achievements of Russian pre-revolutionary Oriental studies. The prolonged and ultimately unsuccessful efforts to organise an expedition to East (Chinese) Turkestan (Xinjiang) in the early 1900s resulted in a loss of ground to foreign competitors. Consequently, Russian researchers were often left with only the remnants of earlier exploratory work, which had little in common with the original objectives of academic research.

In 2025, the centenary of the founding of the International Lenin School (ILS) – the principal educational institution of the Comintern, responsible for training cadres for communist parties worldwide – will be commemorated. Despite its historical significance, the activities of the ILS remain insufficiently explored in historiography. However, researchers today have access to documents from the collections of the International Lenin School at the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI), as well as records from the organisational structures of the Comintern, including protocols of the Politburo and commissions of the Executive Committee of the Comintern. These sources offer valuable insights into the establishment of the ILS, the evolution of its curriculum, shifts in its training objectives, and the development of its personnel.

The primary aim of this study is to examine the creation of the ILS within the broader context of Comintern activities and the leadership of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1925. Specifically, it seeks to analyse the decisions made by party and Comintern leaders regarding the establishment of the school, their interactions, the role of key historical figures, the selection and composition of the teaching staff, and the principles guiding the recruitment of the first students. Although the ILS was undeniably a Comintern project, it was simultaneously developed within the framework of the Soviet system of communist universities and party cadre training. The study demonstrates that the ILS was regarded as the Comintern’s foremost educational institution, staffed by leading educators appointed by Soviet party structures. Moreover, its establishment was directly facilitated by the AUCP(B), which provided financial, methodological, and personnel support, as well as oversight of its curriculum and organisational structure.

In the 1920s, the process of Latinisation of writing systems began in several regions of the USSR, coinciding with similar developments in Turkey. A distinctive feature of Turkey’s linguistic landscape at the time was the predominance of Arabic-Persian vocabulary in the country’s official language, which was fundamentally Turkic. Recognising the need for a comprehensive language reform, the Turkish leadership initiated a transition to the Latin alphabet as its first stage. This policy not only coincided chronologically with Soviet reforms but also shared several key characteristics in terms of objectives and underlying motivations. Firstly, Azerbaijan – one of the Soviet republics most closely linked to Turkey in ethnic and cultural terms – played a leading role in the Latinisation movement within the USSR. Secondly, while the issue of linguistic “pollution” by borrowed vocabulary was not as pressing in the Soviet Union, Soviet Latinisers similarly questioned whether traditional literary languages were suited to the demands of the new era. Thirdly, both Turkey and the Soviet Union justified their script reforms with comparable arguments: Latinisation was framed as a means of advancing modernisation and secularisation. This article examines the key aspects of Turkey’s language reform alongside the approaches of Soviet Latinisers to linguistic and script-related issues. It explores Soviet assessments of Turkey’s linguistic reforms and evaluates the extent of mutual influence between Turkish and Soviet language policies.

The application of postcolonial methodology, particularly the concept of the relationship between colonial power and knowledge production through institutions such as museums and schools, offers a new perspective on the formation of historical memory and national identity among colonised peoples. This article examines the process of establishing museums, which functioned both as centres of traditional culture and as colonial institutions. The study explores the ambivalence surrounding the emergence of museums in Nigeria, the largest British colony in West Africa, between the 1930s and 1950s. It traces the evolution of ideas about museums from discussions of the 1930s within the magazine “Nigeria Teacher” (“Nigeria”) to the establishment of the Nigerian Antiquities Service in 1943 and the opening of the first national museums in the 1940s and 1950s. Particular attention is given to the role of individuals in founding museums and shaping legislation on the protection of cultural heritage. The article highlights the contributions of Kenneth Murray, Edward Duckworth, Stanley Milburn, and other colonial administrators who advocated for the preservation of traditional Nigerian art. The findings indicate that, on the one hand, the establishment of museums was essential for preserving Nigeria’s cultural heritage and preventing the looting and export of artworks. On the other hand, as colonial institutions, museums also played a role in constructing historical memory and shaping national and cultural identity within the framework of imperial ideology.

This article examines Austria’s “Auslandskulturpolitik” (foreign cultural policy) as a distinctively Austrian form of cultural diplomacy. Unlike Germany, France, Italy, or the United States, Austria faces the challenge of representing a small, neutral European country with special ties to Central and Eastern Europe while aspiring to a leading cultural role. The study is based on legislative acts, parliamentary debates, and documents from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), enabling an analysis of Austrian cultural diplomacy as both a function of a democratic state and a reflection of the political elite’s perceptions of culture’s role in foreign policy. In Austria’s parliamentary democracy, debates on foreign cultural policy were largely driven by a few conservative and hard-right legislators and took place mainly in the late 1970s. Within the MFA, “Auslandskulturpolitik” remained largely undertheorised for an extended period. Austria’s foreign cultural policy centres on classical high culture – supplemented to a lesser extent by folk traditions – as well as modern art and literature. The MFA also seeks to promote Austrian German while avoiding direct competition with Germany’s well-established Goethe Institutes, instead leveraging university environments in target countries to establish Austrian Institutes, Cultural Forums, and Libraries. At the same time, Austria’s foreign cultural policy competes with other forms of the country’s cultural presence abroad. Although culture is widely regarded as one of Austria’s most prominent exports, foreign ministry officials engaged in this field do not occupy a primary role within the broader framework of Austrian foreign policy. Their public outreach lags behind that of independent institutions based in Vienna and the federal states.

Both black and white legends surrounding George Washington began to emerge early in his career, with the former being actively propagated by both American and British Tories. However, Russian historical scholarship has largely overlooked Washington’s portrayal in British propaganda. Addressing this gap is particularly relevant, as the study of propaganda mechanisms and the political images they generate remains a significant area of modern historical research. This study draws primarily on periodicals from England, Scotland, and Ireland published during the American War of Independence (1775–1783), with a particular focus on the provincial press. Analysing provincial newspapers provides insight not only into public opinion in London but also into perceptions in Britain’s rural regions, where Washington’s image was shaped among the wider reading public. Given the prevalence of misinformation in British newspapers, American sources – including Washington’s personal papers and the journals of the Continental Congress – were used to verify claims. The findings suggest that the widespread dissemination of false information about Washington was only partly due to the inherent unreliability of transatlantic communication during wartime. To a significant extent, it was a product of deliberate efforts by British propagandists. No substantial regional differences were observed in the portrayal of Washington in the English and Scottish press. However, the Irish press occupied a distinct position, using the American conflict as a lens through which to frame regional anti-colonial discourse. Overall, British pro-government propaganda succeeded in constructing a consistent negative image of Washington, depicting him as a dictator and a ruthless commander who allegedly ordered the burning of New York.