No description available.

No description available.

Institutional development is a process that can be analyzed from the bibliometrics of its contingent generation of documentation in the same manner that can be analyzed by historical methods. As institutions grow in resources, the absolute volume of documentation produced rises. In the context of the Soviet Southern Tier, the Russian language documentation bibliometrics for the eight republics image their relative level of institutional development. Comparing the relative levels of documentation to socio-economic variables, the degree to which the documentation is a local product, or a product of All-Union intervention can be determined. Hence, the degree to which institutional development is dependent or autonomous can be gauged for each republic. The analysis of these relationships between the degree to which documentation production is a dependent process, and the relative level of documentation generation, provides an empirical basis for the ranking of regional institutional development. This ranking establishes the framework for a historical description of the relative position of the nationalities of the Southern Tier. This quantitative perspective on Soviet nationality policy parallels the historical process by which the nationalities have been integrated into the Soviet system. The two nationalities most constrained by the nationality policies are the Armenians, with their nationalism and irredentism based on well developed local institutions, and the Uzbeks, with their large population base and historical leadership role in Central Asia. The role of intensively Soviet developed nationalities (Turkmen, Kirghiz, and Karakalpak) in the multi-ethnic system is considered in terms of their moderating the potential for hegemony by the largest nationalities. Azerbaijan SSR emerges as the regional center of a system of measures taken to promote stability and to minimize the prospects of autonomous ethnic hegemony in the Soviet Southern Tier.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The Soviet manned space programme is one of the most impressive and mysterious legacies of the Soviet Union. Evidence that has come to light since 1989 throws considerable doubt on earlier Western understanding of the Soviet space effort. One of the more puzzling aspects of the new data is the claim that the Chief Designers of several missile design bureaux played a pivotal role in the making of Soviet manned space policy. This claim contradicts much of what was thought to be known about the Soviet space programme, their research and development system, and Soviet politics generally. This dissertation is an empirical study that seeks to answer four interrelated questions. 1. What major manned space projects did the Soviet Union engage in during the 1960s, and how were these projects authorised? 2. Did the Chief Designers play an influential role in the promotion, selection, approval, and implementation of these projects? 3. What were the overall objectives and purposes of the Soviet manned space programme? 4. What does the example of Soviet space policy tell us about the Soviet political system? The examination of institutions, individuals, and the policymaking process has led to the following conclusions. The Soviet manned space programme was an extremely limited state undertaking until 1964. Prior to Khrushchev's ouster, the Soviet Union began several manned lunar space programmes designed to upstage the US Apollo moon landing effort. When all of these efforts failed by 1969, Soviet manned space policy was re-directed toward orbital space stations. One Chief Designer, Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, played a central role in establishing the Soviet manned space programme. However, the ability Chief Designers to influence space policy was systematically restricted after 1960. The manned space programme was essentially a political programme. Throughout the 1960s, it was effectively controlled by a handful of top party leaders to achieve their domestic and international political objectives.

No description available.

This dissertation explores the development of Soviet photomontage from the second half of the 1930s to the end of the 1970s. Until now, the transformation of the modernist medium and its incorporation into the everyday practice of Soviet visual propaganda during and after the Second World War has not attracted much scholarly attention. The firm association of photomontage with the Russian Avant-garde in general, and with Constructivism in particular, has led art historians to disregard the fact that the medium was practised in the USSR until the final days of the Soviet system. The conservative government organisations in control of propaganda preserved satirical photomontage in its post-Dadaist phase and Heartfield-like form, finding it useful in the production of negative propaganda.