"THE REPORT OF CRIMEAN CEC AND SPC ON RE-EMIGRATION OF CRIMEAN TATARS FROM BULGARIA AND ROMANIA"

Preface

Published below is a document from the State Archive of Russian Federation (SARF, Moscow) that was kept in the repository of Central Executive Committee.¹.

In July 1923, Third session of CEC of USSR at its first meeting approved the Resolution on CEC of USSR, which created a two-chamber structure for this body: the Union Soviet and Soviet of Nationalities (CEC of USSR, which was elected at the 1st Congress of Soviets of CEC of USSR on December 1922, was one-chamber), both chambers were equal.

The Soviet of the Union and Soviet of Nationalities each elected their Presidiums, which prepared the sessions and controlled over the activity of the chambers. These Presidiums answered to the general Presidium of Central Committee of USSR, which oversaw the implementation of the resolutions of Soviets and CEC of USSR, and regulated the relationship between CPC and people’s commissariats of the Union on the one hand, and between CEC² of union republics and their Presidiums - on the other hand. Among the topics considered were issues relating to development at the individual nationalities’ and at the Soviet (all-union} levels.³ Namely, it was at the Presidium of CEC that the report of the Crimean CEC and SPC on re-emigration of Crimean Tatars from Bulgaria and Romania was submitted in April 1925. In this report, the leaders of the Crimean ASSR urged the highest government bodies to consider the issue of the return of a significant part of the Crimean Tatars to their historical Motherland, who found themselves outside Crimea as a result of one and a half centuries of the emigrational process. The Draft was considered – “under party procedure” - and was rejected.

As can be seen from the sources, the issue on re-emigration of Crimean Tatars from Romania and Bulgaria was one of the important issues of the leadership of Crimea, in the first years, after the establishment of the Crimean ASSR in 1921.⁴ Apparently, this issue obtained a particular urgency in the beginning of 1925, when the Decree of the CEC of the USSR from 29 August 1924 established the Committee on land settlement of able-bodied Jewry⁵ that resulted to the activization of the process of Jewish emigration to Crimea.⁶

It is quite obvious, that already in that period the on-going settlement of a Jewish population in Crimea (in 1923-1924s) by a process of “individual initiative” that settled 638 families (3221 persons) on an area of 18,662 dessiatinas)⁷ ran counter to the plans of the leadership of Crimea, who considered “settlement of local agricultural population”⁸ their primary task. In January of 1925, the People’s Commissariat on Agriculture of Crimea expressed “a particular opinion”, which said that the issue of emigration of a Jewish population to Crimea could be solved only “when will be completed an organization of the use of land between villages and establish a free land fund”. One noted as well, that “according to decisions of Constituent and 4th All-Crimean Congresses of Soviets they put to the Government a question on the allotment of lands for Tatars returning from countries of the Middle East”.⁹ Already, in the beginning of February of 1925, Crimean CEC has decided to solicit the CEC of the USSR for permission for 20,000 re-emigrants of Crimean Tatars from Bulgaria and Romania to come to Crimea.¹⁰

During the next few months, the problem of re-emigration remained one of the actual problems of Crimea. This problem was discussed in detail and in the Party press. Thus, the article of A. Leonov “Organization of the use of land in Crimea” from 24 May 1925 covered the economic aspects of emigration of re-emigrants to Crimea: “For needs of settlement are necessary big funds, a part of those funds will be received as a permanent loan for the requirements of the organization of the use of land and other funds will be reimbursable for credit granting for the erecting of buildings, and acquiring farm equipment” <...> The Crimean CEC applied to NCEC to obtain funds for these needs in the sum of 3.907.373 rubles, this sum was given by the People’s Land Commissariat.¹¹ In a few days, at an enlarged plenary meeting of the Crimean regional committee and regional Supervisory committee of RCP (b) in the end of May of 1925 was definitely noted that the “issue of allotment of lands for Jewry was closely connected with emigration of Tatars from Romania and Bulgaria to us”.¹²

Nevertheless this issue, which was crucial for the Crimean leadership was practically closed after the return of Chairman of the Crimean CEC V. Ibraimov and People’s Commissar S. Memetov from Moscow at the beginning of July of 1925. S. Memetov in his interview, which was published in the newspaper “Krasnyi Krym” (Red Crimea) from 7 July 1925, didn’t touch further the issue on re-emigration, and as one of the foreground tasks of the Crimean organization of the use of land now was developed a plan for settlement of farmers having insufficient land in forest regions to the steppe regions. He also said there would be a delay of allotment of additional lands amounting to 31,600 dessiatinas for Jewish settlers until 1.06.26, which was permitted by the Presidium of CEC.¹³ We can only guess, was this new plan the price, which had to be paid in order to bury forever the plan of re-emigration of Crimean Tatars from Bulgaria and Romania or had the Center given any another forcible arguments against re-emigration, which were as determinative in the adoption of a final decision on “sending” of the project on re-emigration “to the archive”.

The question of whether political¹⁴, economic¹⁵ or other issues were the main ones can only be answered after scrupulous studying of additional sources and serious criticism of them. Undoubtedly, another important issue is how did the plan on changing Jewish families to agriculture, and sending them to separate regions of Russia (including Crimea), UkrSSR, BSSR and ZSSR, influences the final decision on the problem of re-emigration of Crimean Tatars. On September 1925, this plan was admitted “as appropriate to state interests as to needs of working population”.¹⁷

The further destiny of the initiators and defenders of the draft of re-emigration is well known. In 1928, the chairman of Crimean CEC Veli Ibraimov was repressed (among a great number of absurd charges he was accused and of “overemphasizing national” interests in detriment to class ones” - it is possible, they reminded him of his unsuccessful attempt to return his compatriots to homeland. The fate shared by the Chairman of Crimean CPC Osman Deren-Ayirli (in March, 1926, he was dismissed from his post as the Chairman of Soviet of People’s Commissars of Crimea).

Apparently, it was one of the first examples, but by no means the last one of the Crimean Tatar peoples’ resurgence in conditions of the “Soviet experiment”, when the local initiative faced the reality of a rising administrative - command control system rigidly regulating any displays of national independence. Though, if the first post-October decade still passed in conditions of “cooperation/flirting with indigenous elites”¹⁸ (G. Bordugov, V. Bukharayev), that all subsequent years for many “Soviet ethnical groups” were noted by events, which were much more tragic. Namely, for this reason it is difficult to rank the published document, despite of some archaic style of exposition to the category of historical “monuments”, interesting only from the especially research point of view.

The text is printed with reductions. Stylistics and spelling basically are preserved, the separate remarks on reproduction of the text are noted and are explained at the bottom of the page, the minor gaps in the text are noted by a badge <...>

Gulnara Bekyrova prepared the preface, remarks and the text.

THE REPORT OF CRIMEAN CEC AND SPC ON RE-EMIGRATION OF CRIMEAN TATARS
FROM BULGARIA AND ROMANIA TO CRIMEA AND THE REASONS OF TATARS' EMIGRATION.^*

TO PRESIDUM OF CEC OF USSR

1. Report of Crimean CEC and Crimean SPC on re-emigration of Crimean Tatars from Bulgaria and Romania to Crimea.

2. Detailed report on reasons for the Crimean Tatars’ emigration after the occupation of Crimea by the Russian autocracy.

TO PRESIDIUM OF CEC OF USSR^**

What was once the blossoming and densely populated Crimea, since its annexation to Russia in 1783, under influence of the hypocritical and mean policy of the imperial government, which aspired by all means to drive the indigenous population from their native homes, very soon became deserted. At the same time, Crimea lost an active, freedom-loving and able-bodied part of the population, and became economically depressed.

The first wave of the mass panic distress, which began at once after the annexation of Crimea to Russia, lasted 17 years, during which about 300,000 persons emigrated and were deported by the administrative order mainly to Anatolia and Rumelia province of Turkey.(1)

The emigration did not cease, but slowed down a little in the first half of 19th century, a secondary mass emigration of Tatars began after the end of the Crimean war: already in 1856 with the withdrawal Turkish troops, some tens thousand of indigenous population emigrated, and for two years (1860-1862), according to official information, 181.177 persons including men and women. Actually, certainly many more persons emigrated, because the emigration was especially amplified when the distribution of foreign passports was extremely complicated due to the desolation of territory.

The size of the second wave of emigration can be judged already by the facts that in one Perekopskyi district 278 settlements were deserted, 244 settlements of which by 1870, under information of Zemstvo (elective district council in Russia, 1864-1917s) remained in ruins. In a total in 4 former Crimean districts, except for Yalta, which the emigration did not touch, almost all Tatars had left 687 settlements, 315 ones of which completely became empty. The memorable book of Tavricheskyi province of 1889, v. IX edited by Verner/. The emigration in 1889 had the greatest scope of the subsequent emigrations, during which about 200,000 Tatars emigrated from Crimea.

Thus, according to the most modest calculation, during last one and 1/2 centuries, Crimea lost 800-900 thousand persons of the indigenous population.

If to this is added the mass losses of the young generation during the Russo-Japanese imperial and Civil Wars, including significant extinction and impoverishment of the Tatar masses during famine in 1921-1922, in this period, under the information of CC on Control of Famine’s repercussions (2) Tatars lost 80,000 persons, which makes completely understandable the process of transformation of Crimea, in which until recently the Tatar’s population was dominant over other nationalities, and which turned them into national minority, that is visible below from table.

The indigenous population of Crimea due to emigration and war losses lost the most proven, active, most capable and revolutionary element, just that element, which most likely and most of all could extricate their fellow-countrymen, who stayed in Crimea, from the shadow of a gloom and ignorance.

The most part of the emigrants, which settled in Bulgaria and Romania, and also found asylum in Anatolia, found themselves on a foreign land only as tolerated stepsons, and “cannon-fodder”, actually, Tatars have been in such a situation during the whole period of subordination of their empire to the sultans.

Due to this, the emigrants have become isolated in themselves and not mixed with the majority of foreign population. They kept their own cultural - national life and purity of the Crimean dialect and, owing to the Moslem law “Sylyakha”^***, they maintained ties with their relatives, who have stayed in Crimea. The emigrant’s aspiration to return to Crimea, which they consider their native land doesn’t expire for a minute. Especially now, due to current gloomy political and economic situation in Bulgaria and Romania (3), in which workers and peasants are choking from oppression, militarists and gendarmes, - the desire of the emigrants-Tatars from Bulgaria and Romania to return to native Crimea appreciably has quickened. In Crimea have begun to arrive one by one the refugees of the descendants of the Crimean emigrants - Tatars, who are applying to CEC and SPC of Crimea having firm reliance to find protection, help and patronage in the Soviet country. Under a rough estimate, for the period from 1783 to 1903, 60 % of 800-900,000 re-emigrants-Tatars moved to territory of Romania and Bulgaria, which were considered in that period as a province of Turkey that in figures means 500-540,000 persons. But these figures certainly have changed after a number of Russian-Turkish wars, with withdrawal of Turkish authority, which subsequently resulted again the emigration of Crimean Tatars from the new districts, recently settled by them, under pressure of the same reasons, which existed after occupation of Crimea by Russian autocracy. Now, Crimean Tatars, who stayed in Romania and Bulgaria, constitute approximately 400-450,000 persons; in Turkey, in its European territory and in Asia Minor, the number of Tatars is much greater than their number in Romania and Bulgaria. Of emigrants, those most wishing to return to Crimea, are Romanian and Bulgarian Tatars, moreover, first of all, that population that desires to re-emigration in the people who have been under strong exploitation of the Romanian and Bulgarian landowners and because of dispersion is exposed to the greatest violence on the side of dominant elements in these countries, including every possible reprisals of police - gendarme regime.

Under available information giving by the refugees and the letters from Romania and Bulgaria, the specified categories of the emigrants - Tatars, who expect with impatience the moment of re-emigration to Crimea constitute about 60-70,000 persons, who, first of all, need the assistance, by way of re-emigration of them to Crimea.

Still the first Constituent Congress of Soviets of Independent Crimean ASSR, which on November 7-12, 1921, was held in Simferopol, adopted, by the way, the land law, in which was introduced an additional allotment, alongside that for the landless, land-hungry, first of all, including EMIGRANTS Tatars, who in the era of tsarism were deported from Crimea and went to Turkey and Balkans.

The First All-Crimean Congress of Soviets, by this addition in the Land Law, has tried to rectify in a practical way¹⁹ the historical injustice of tsarism and bourgeoisie, which had been built their own domination on oppression of nationalities. By this addition in the effective land law, the Congress not only has emphasized a desire of return of the emigrants - Tatars to Crimea, but also accompanied an the addition by the words "first of all", has provided a possibility of returning of the emigrants in the shortest period after publication of the land law. However, from that period, the heaviest famine, which befell Crimea, reflected first of all on the Tatar peasantry having the weakest economy. The consequences this famine for a long time not only put the question of re-emigration aside, in the beginning of 1922, during the severe famine hungry Tatars came in despair and panic prepared to emigrate, but because of a lack of funds for departure, gathered in the ports of Crimea and died out. Under influence of this circumstance, Romanian and Bulgarian Tatars wishing to re-emigrate involuntarily have suspended a movement on re-emigration to Crimea. But as soon as, Crimea has begun to recover from the wound put by famine, the desire to re-emigrate has redoubled. The aforesaid proves that for Crimean Tatars in Romania and Bulgaria there is a strong desire and firm reliance to re-emigrate.

To determine the number of re-emigrants who actually can be settled in Crimea without damage to the existing labour population of the Republic, it is necessary to address the question of an establishment of a free land fund, which, unfortunately, because of outdated information on lands and unfinished interregional organization of the use of land ²⁰, can be estimated only approximately. As it is visible from information, given below.

Of the total number of lands available in Crimea constituting 2360425 dessiatinas, under the information of Crimean People’s Land Committee, there is 2.230.781 dessiatinas of CONVENIENT land.(4)

If to adhere to land standards, which were affirmed by the 1st All-Crimean Congress of Soviets and are implementing during organization of the use of land, for the local population necessary to give 1.748.563 dessiatinas, i.e. ostensibly there is a significant land’s surplus mainly in steppe part of Crimea in size of 482.218 dessiatinas. Actually, there was no any land’s surplus.

First of all, it is necessary to exclude from the above up to 200.000 dessiatinas of the wooded area, which anyway cannot be given the population. 100,000 dessiatinas of another 282.218 dessiatinas are liable to retention for the Soviet farms and which actually they have. Thus, the free land fund constitutes 182.218 dessiatinas.

But if we take into account, that experience shows that during the organization of the use of land, the percent of inconvenient land, actually is significantly more than that accepted by former calculations. Especially, if we take into account the waterless areas of saline soils located near Syvash area of Dzhankoi and in Kerch areas and stony areas, which are unusable, even for shepherds, which were not included previously in the category of inconvenient lands (and such lands on the most modest calculation will be not less than 50.000 dessiatinas), in this case, the free land fund in Crimea will not exceed 130.000 dessiatinas. It is necessary to add yet to this, that in Crimean plans the standards of allotment of special cultures are not reconsidered and in comparison with those affirmed by the 1st All-Crimean Congress of Soviets are doubled, that, certainly, will entail after the affirmation of standard by Supreme Legislative Institutions of Republic, another additional reduction for the population and will reduce the estimated above land fund approximately up to 100.000 dessiatinas.

Here is the probable land area, which can be granted to re-emigrants-Tatars. Providing of allotment of 20-25 land dessiatinas for a farm, the land fund will allow for arranging up to 20.000 re-emigrants, who are supposed to settle in Dzhankoi, Evpatoria, Simferopol and Karasubazar districts in settlements of 200 persons in each and with strict application of the principle of the collective system of management in them.

In view of complexity and difficulty of the practical solution of a question on the painless installation of them on new places, first of all, it is supposed to settle at most 20.000 emigrants, beginning from settlement of those regions, where by virtue of famine of 1921 there were significant losses of the Tatar population as, for example, in regions Burulcha, Karasu²¹etc.

Presence here of half-destroyed living and economic constructions and some finished draw-wells on the one hand and the existence in them of some reserve free lands, on the other hand, allows, first of all, us to focus just on these free lands.

Certainly, such areas will be not sufficient for the first group of re-emigrants and last ones will be settled as well in other parts of steppe regions. Only after the settlement of the first group of 20.000 emigrants, if the land fund will allow, it is possible to begin emigration of next 20,000 from Romania and Bulgaria and then other 10-20,000 re-emigrants after the settlement of the second group. Of number of emigrants first of all it is proposed to settle:

In Dzhankoi region - 7,300 persons

In Evpatoria region - 7,700 persons

In Simferopol region - 3,500 persons

In Karasubazar - 1,500 persons

Total: 20.000 persons or 4.000 farms.

Actual accomplishment of the plan for settlement of re-emigrants in Crimea, alongside with other conditions, which will be discussed below, will be based on that material assistance, which will be given them by the Soviet Government in the form of the long-term credit.

Taking into account that for their settlement the emigrants can be given free a part of constructions available in DSL (Department on state lands by Office of organization of the use of land and state lands of People’s Commissariat of Agriculture (Narkomzem) of Crimean ASSR), building stone and part of surplus stock, nevertheless for their settlement will be necessary the following material help:

a) On well-sinking in 50 new settlements, by 15.000 rubles for a draw-well <...> 750.000 rubles.

b) 1000 carts by 200 rubles.... 200.000 rubles.

c) On construction of premises by 250 r., for a farm 1.000.000 r.

TOTAL - 1.950.000 r.

If it is assumed, that 1/3 of the re-emigrants will not need governmental assistance and will bring necessary stock and supplies with themselves, in this case, for the other part of the emigrants there should be open at least five-year or three-year credit in size of about 1.300.000 rubles.

Besides, the emigrants must be given free timber from public forest plantations of Crimea. These emigrants will receive the general tax and other privileges, which State gives to poor emigrants, including the free transportation of re-emigrants and their personal property by water-carriage and railway transport from ports and boundary points of Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania to ports and stations of the Crimean republic.

Besides, the settlement of emigrants, who ache for their homeland, a re-emigration pursues more tasks of political and strategic character. Under figurative expression of LENIN: “the Small Crimean republic should become a torch throwing its light of proletarian revolution on the East”. The appearance of the Tatar emigrant's movement to USSR, certainly, will be the origin of a lot of the conflicts between the emigrants and governments of bourgeois states. At the same time, this can be an incitement for strengthening of agrarian movement in neighbouring foreign states hostilely indisposed to our Union, among which, first of all, are Romania and Bulgaria. And will put new social groups into the hands of Soviet power, through which it will be possible to deepen the influence of the USSR.

Crimea being itself like an advanced post of the Union in the south is most accessible to landings of armed gangs of imperial predators. It can easily turn into a foothold for intervention of mercenaries of imperialism to USSR. The inflow of emigrants from the outside, who are identical with the Tatar population of Crimea by blood, language and ideology, will appreciably increase that number of manpower, which will create the reliable local fighters devoted up to fanaticism for Soviet power.

Ending the present report, Crimean CEC and Crimean SPC ask:

a) To begin intercession for the admittance of entrance of Tatars-emigrants to Crimea from Bulgaria and Romania, first of all, in account of 20.000 persons.

b) To satisfy completely from Crimean available reserve land fund, first of all, the re-emigrants-Tatars, by reserving for them necessary amount of lands for the first group, in size of 100.000 dessiatinas.

c) To ask PCFA²² of USSR to contact with Governments of Bulgaria and Romania about the admittance to the former emigrants-Crimean Tatars, living in their territory, which will wish to return to Crimean SSR, and to give for them green visas on entrance to Crimea.

d) To give to Crimean CEC 1.300.000 rubles as the long-term credit for the period of 5 or 3 years for rendering the material help to the destitute re-emigrants for their elementary settlement, and providing by necessary stock and draw-wells.

e) To allow free using of lumber from public forest plantations of Crimea, including equal free production of a stone for construction of dwellings and economic services.

f) To distribute on emigrants-Tatars tax and other privileges, which the State gives to the poor settlers.

g) To give the appropriate number of the maritime transportation for free transportation of re-emigrants and their personal property from ports of Bulgaria and Romania, including railway transportation to carry them over territory of Crimean ASSR.

OFFICE MANAGER²³
Stamp
CrimSSR²⁴
Central Executive Committee
Soviets on labour, peasantry, Red Army Man
and naval deputies
13 January 1925
185/1
Crimea-Simferopol

Attached:

1. Detailed report on the reason of emigration Crimean Tatars.

2. The sheet on account of villages with the indication of number of persons in the recent past obtained from statistics of Land Offices and Tavricheskyi Provincial Archive, which existed before ending of emigration.²⁵

3. The list of the landowners and privileged elements of tsarism, which occupied the lands of Crimean Tatars.²⁶

THE APPENDIX 1

To case on re-emigration of Tatars to Crimean SSR

I
THE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REASONS, WHICH CAUSED
MASS EMIGRATION OF CRIMEAN TATARS

Being as though between a hammer and anvil - between two powerful states - Russia and Turkey, the Crimea inhabited by Tatars, who are related by blood, religion and language to Turkey, after annexation in 1783 to Russia, fell under the heaviest repression and violence of tsarism. Which aspired in the briefest period, not abhorring the most brutal measures, to pull out by the roots the indigenous Tatar population of Crimea from their native homes, and settle in their place the cream and dregs of the military and civil bureaucracy and courtier camarilla, as well as peoples hostile, or neutral towards Turkey: the Greeks, Armenians, Moldavians, German emigrants from Germany, Czechs from Austria, Estonians, Poles, Lithuanians, Gipsy, Jews, dependent emigrants-peasants from populous areas of Empire, corps of Kuban Cossacks and various other military force, churchmen-missionaries to the number of 4.000 persons, criminal elements, from the point of view “Holy” Synod, (Dukhobors, Malaccans etc. dissenters), which were condemned to hard and on a settlement in Siberia, fugitive the landed classes’ peasants, soldiers deserted from army and, at last, women taken from Russia, which were providently given to the single soldiers, fugitives and deserters. Russians took all positions in the military and civil bodies (bureaucracy) with the complete elimination of the indigenous population from power.

The “Christianization” policy of Russian tsarism towards annexed regions was always accomplished with their usual hypocritical cynicism.

The Manifesto from April 8, 1783 on annexation of Crimea to Russia solemnly declared the “protection and support of the new citizens, their property, and religion”, and permitted to “each of them those rights and advantages, which has everyone in Russia”.

Under Katherine’s decree from November 9, 1794 to Senate, all owners-Mohammedans of new annexed Tavricheskyi oblast, without distinction of a rank and the social standing had a right for a free possession of the real estates, with transfer of this right and on to their heirs.

Under the rescript from September 18, 1796 in the name of the general - governor Zubov (5) new citizens are given the right in cases on division of the patrimony, to be guided by the Koran and to solve in general their litigations, and in case of the mutual consent litigants, by arbitration with the intercession of mullahs.

The Tatar working masses never having known the beauties of Russian serfdom, got used to the patriarchal character of the interclass relations, using freely all lands and forests in the country, with easy payment 1/10 parts of a crop and working for the state for 6-8 days each year on the basis of voluntary work, almost suddenly became, because of mass distribution and plunder of land fund, unemployed cottagers, who were innocent of any means of subsistence.

The “benefactions” promised by the above-mentioned Manifesto, decree and rescript for the defeated population appeared to be the purest fiction. Mass arrests, exile, disdain, and ruthless Russification policy, at once drove the people to extremities. Exhausted by distempers and dissension sown in the country, the population which supported by its devotion to the beautiful motherland, and which, in a literal sense was given to the avaricious sharks of tsarism to be devastated, with an unforgettable pain in their souls, began a mass emigration to Turkey (Rumelia and Anatolia).

The first wave of the mass stampede, which began at once after the annexation of Crimea to Russia, covers the 17-year’s period (1783-1800), during which time about 300,000 persons emigrated or were deported by the administrative order. That constituted 20 % of the total number of the Tatar population in cities and settlements of Crimea (up to 1.500 persons in 1770, not taking into account Nogais on the continent).

The second wave of mass emigration to Turkey began after the ending of the Crimean war (1856-1862s). In 1856, a lot of Tatars emigrated after the withdrawal Turkish troops. According to official information during only the 2 years (1860-1862), with the passports and certificates 181.177 persons (men and women) emigrated, but also this number does not give the total number of deportees and obviously was underestimated. Because alongside the legal emigration, there was the secret one, which significantly increased, when delivery of the foreign passports became complicated due to the depopulation of region. Should one attempt to imagine approximately to oneself the sizes of this second emigration wave, it is enough to tell that only in one Perekopskyi district 278 settlements have become desolate. According to information of the zemstvo by 1870, 244 of them remained in ruins; in total in former 4 Crimean districts (except for the Yalta district, which the emigration almost did not touch), Tatars had left 687 settlements, of which 315 completely became desolate (Memorable book Tavrichesk province for 1889. Under edit. Verner - volume IX)

The factors causing the first purely spontaneous wave of emigration have continued unceasingly to act, increasing in the force and cruel sequence, but during second mass emigration, they were added by another, deeper, economic reasons. The situation of Tatars during the Crimean war and after it was awful. The Tatar farm, which was devastated by military actions in region and lost main riches - cattle, could hardly to endure impost oppression, consisting of collections, which substituted for the earlier practice of natural and personal duties.

With the exception of a small minority, the Tatar labour masses, which were completely dispossessed of their land, worked on landed classes’ lands, paying the holder 1/10 share of a crop. Under the influence of hearsay about an early enfranchisement of the peasants and allotment to them of lands, some of the landed classes demanded from dessiatinschiks (who paid the holder 1/10 share of a crop), that they leave their old homesteads, others sold the lands and, as a result, dessiatinschiks also lost, because the new holders or leasers raised the price for land.

The newly wealthy masters, Karaites and others, built their economic constructions on the ruins of former villages of Tatar dessiatinschiks, from which there remained only kolibnyi²⁷ dilapidated cottages, and revealed in their newly acquired fortunes and considered the destiny of the expellees.

The form of rent, which was dominating in Crimea (dessiatinschina, skopschina) (6), had huge economic consequences. That which remained for the peasant - leaser, after cover of expenses on planting crops, keeping of working cattle and stock, was lower than the wages, which the cottager could have received by working. Delivering the landowner from necessity to spend any capital on alive and dead stock, from risk of a poor harvest, and cares of hiring a labour force, dessiatinschik had only the benefit in apparent self-sufficiency and independence.

Dessiatinschik balanced the cost of full using of his labour force and family, which cost he did not include in his expenses. Tatars based their contracts on rent of land typically on one crop. Everywhere an unwillingness of the landowner to renew the agreement resulted in deportation of the whole villages. Already one absolute power of the landowner to refuse a renewal of the agreement kept Tatars-dessiatinschiks in full dependence of the good will of the landowner. This dependence, as sword of Damocles, paralyzed economic freedom of the Tatar-dessiatinschik, and was a barrier for raising the economic level, and it held the whole culture on a low level, because there was no sense to rise higher, having a full uncertainty in tomorrow’s day.

Thus, Tatars-dessiatinschiks, considering the land on which they had lived for hundreds of years and which they worked as their patrimonies from their fathers and grandfathers, because of seizure of all lands by the newly arrived element, actually lived only by a chimera of independence.

The efforts of Tatars to be granted the same amount of land as the foreigners, Russians and other national groups, at the expense of the public lands, remained ineffectual. So, the Ministry on the State-Owned Properties refused landless Tatars of Feodosia district in 1858-1859, in their petition for allotment to them of lands and offered to resettle them on public lands in Orenburg province.

Shortly before it, at the outset of the Crimean war (June 1854) the head of Tavrichesk House of the state-owned properties asked the commander-in-chief prince Menshikov (7) about deportation of all Crimean Tatars “TO ONE OF THE FAR PROVINCES” on the ground that resettlement is possible, because the most part of Tatars lives on the landed classes’ lands and so does not achieve that level of welfare, which government wished”/ opinion of pr. Menshikov to Military Minister, 30 September, 1854 # 1227. Archive of Office Military Ministry, case 1 118/. This measure, which demonstrates the outlandish machinations and which could completely eliminate the Tatar people if was accomplished, was not implemented in time only because of the following landing of the enemy troops and occupation of Evpatoria by them, anyhow under circumstances over which Menshikov had no control. /Dubrovin “History of the Crimean war and defence of Sevastopol”/.

The assiduous promoters of autocracy, wishing to gain promotion, in 1860 made the maximum efforts: “not understanding a danger of such actions, they gathered people and read the decree on the plazas about permission to leave Crimea and go to Turkey. Others, as it was in Evpatoria, cynically accompanied this reading with threats of violence/ Vestnik Yevropy (Herald of Europe) 1882 1 10/.

Here the references to materials, which were taken from zemstvo statistical digests on Tavrichesk province will not be superfluous /v. I-IX/.

In Crimea, the landed gentry established themselves who were not engaged in farming, allocated their lands to small tenants for 1/10 or other part of the crop.

“Except privileged large owners, the significant land lots were received by colonists and separate peasants; but because of it the mass of the least privileged groups of population stayed without any land allotment and served as cottagers for the owners of mostly steppe regions of Crimea, where landless people, in general, constituted to 72 % of householders; in lowland regions they were 46,5 %, in mountain 9,7 %, and in continental (with dominant Russian population) - 3,5 % of householders. Tatars constituting, under population census of 1887, to 89 % of total population of Crimea, had been the largest group of landless persons. In steppe region they constituted 3835 householders or 65 % of all landless persons, in lowland region - 6165 or 63,7 %, and at last in mountain - 433 or 57,7 %”. Last figures were taken from memorable book of Tavrichesk province, 1989, under edition of Verner.

II
THE CATCHY PLANS OF THE RUSSIAN BUREAUCRACY.
REASONS FOR SUPPORT OF THESE PLANS BY TATAR MULLAHS AND MURZAS.
THEIR DESIRE TO RETURN TO MOTHERLAND

That the Russian bureaucracy of period of Nikolai I and Alexander II was so creative, that it did not abhor the use of any, even the most repulsive measures for extermination of the Tatar population, is visible from the following seeming as improbable, monstrous, but nevertheless verified facts.

Being not satisfied by using usual measures and thinking that “the purpose justifies the remedies”, Imperial Government took to services of provocateurs, which sold themselves to tsarism. Emigrants from Turkey, the Greeks and Armenians, became fluent in the Turkish language and to a subtlety studied Moslem creed. This enabled them to play the role of the Turkish emissaries - mullahs. Masked by mullahs, with smooth faced heads, in turban or tarbooshes and white fascias, the selling provocateurs vigorously fomented religious fanaticism among dark, enslaved masses by need, doubly whipped up an idea on emigration to Turkey, on meeting their required hadj or the discharge of gidzhret-vadzhib (emigration to the country of coreligionists), rumoured that the sultan “will build city and give bullocks”, that the life will begin to flow absolutely on other way, promising them on a new place “milk and honey”.

The provocation of the villains was a success and the task set for them by bureaucracy was brilliantly realized. Their allies in this nefarious work of the phony mullahs-villains were in addition the real, homebrew mullahs, and also the privileged Tatar estate - murzes. Excited by self-interested motives based on social upheaval, undoubtedly fostered blind escape of Tatars, including very old men and old women and nurslings to a country that was far from being “the promised land, with milk and honey”. Mullahs from their hand hypocritically “blessed” masses, which were covered by datura of fanaticism to make the fatal step.

Being quite aware of the committed events and so standing far from any idea on emigration, murzes said ditto to selling mullahs and also tried whenever possible to hoodwink the dark masses.

And not only among mullahs, but also among murzes were not found any men, who warned the unfortunate people of the false fatal step, attempted by it.

Concealing in the depth of their souls all their bitterness and pain, the Tatars left their native fields, including their dwellings, remaining cattle, resources of bread, and sometimes and growing cornfields. Murzes, Karaites and colonists bought the devalued lands for 10-15 copecks for dessiatinas and then were resold to different kulaks, large and small owners with the large profit. The huge estates were quickly created... Here the mullahs made good by living on the cattle and other resources left behind, while at the same time the Tatars gathered without any property on the Black Sea coast.

The emigration of Tatars coincided with mass emigration of Caucasian Highlanders to Turkey, under the similar idea of the Caucasian administration, which was carried out by the Russian general-Ossetian Kandaukhov, who received from the government for his work generous and rich indulgences. These and those had to wait for their departure, half-year and more, on a coast of the sea under the open sky without any means of subsistence. It is difficult to express those sufferings, which should be suffered by emigrants literally by thousands dying from famine, cold and mass illnesses. Under the words of the contemporaries, in one Feodosia, where the quarantine was arranged, 75% of the emigrants died.

Berdzhe (8) in “Russian antiquity” for 1882 describes awful scenes, which were seen by him in this period. “Later bad weather and cold season, almost absolute lack of any means of subsistence and raging between them (emigrants) epidemics of a typhus and smallpox drove them to extremity. And indeed whose heart would not shudder who saw it, for example, young woman in rags, laying on crude ground, under the open sky, with two babies, from which one in mortal agony struggled with death, while another searched to assuage at breast of already stiff in death of a corpse of the mother. And there were a lot of similar scenes”.

Any help from government to perishing emigrants was not given. The legend, which was kept by the Tatar and Russian population of Crimea and Caucasian Highlanders informs on awful things. Ships congested by emigrants, had perforated bottoms and, being taking the sea DROWNED TOGETHER WITH EMIGRANTS, and money intended for transportation of emigrants, with all their poor property was received by the agents of imperial power, who accomplished the transportation of the emigrants.

Naturally, nothing was prepared in Turkish territory for reception of the groups of emigrants. They were sick, starved and died in masses. The lands allocated for them in Anatolia were not worth a curse of sand and stone, or in districts extremely unhealthy, with malaria. Escaped from there to Rumelia and Dobrudzha (9) emigrants found themselves in the bad conditions as well, or allotted the marshy plains for their settlement which were the constant center of bitterest malaria. Thus, all east, southern and western coast of the Black sea was sown with graves of Tatars and Highlanders.

This is a distressful saga of the second mass emigration of Crimean Tatars, so brightly reflected the heartlessness of “domestic” administration and being a theme for one of emigrant songs with a refrain “I sing and sob”, brought in the appendix II (with translation in Russian).²⁷

Tatars, who survived bemoaned the fields and graves of the fathers, which they left. They named their settlements on distant foreign land in Anatolia, in Dobrudzha and Rumelia, which were founded by them, by the names of their settlements in Crimea. Finding asylum in Turkey, Tatars were in the status only of tolerated stepsons, and “cannon-fodder”, actually, Tatars were in this status during all period of sultans’ subjection over their empire.

The existing unfriendly feeling of Ottomans towards Tatars has deep historical roots. The national hero of Turks, one of greatest despots of his time, vanquisher of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Albania, Walachia, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Bessarabia, sultan Bayazet I (10) was overwhelmed in the fight at Angora²⁸, affined to Ottomans by religion and language, descendant of Chingiz-Khan by redoubtable Timur, there were a lot of Tatars in his troops. This cruel defeat of Turkey, which was shortly before that in apogee of the power and glory, of iron Timur, who was vanquisher of all central Asia, Persia, India, Baghdad and Damascus, resulted to loss by Turkey of its prestige in Asia and loss of its favourite sultan Bayazet. Timur caged Bayazet who soon died in humiliation on foreign land.

This national insult has sunk down in the heart of the Ottomans and, as it is strange, could not be forgotten by them even by the currently living generation.

Settled in Anatolia (Turkey), Rumelia (Bulgaria) and Dobrudzha (Romania) Tatars-emigrants became isolated themselves and not mixed with the population, which was foreign to them, keeping a cultural - national life and purity of the Crimean dialect. But, by virtue of the custom, which has taken roots in them, having a basis in Moslem law under a name “Selyag”²⁹, considering mutual visiting by relatives as a godly step. Ties of Tatars living in Crimea with their cognates abroad were never interrupted and do not interrupt. This taken roots custom strongly maintains in the emigrants eternal desire to return to Crimea, which they never cease to consider as the homeland.

III
THE TASKS, WHICH THE RE-EMIGRATING TATARS HAVE SET FOR THEMSELVES. AN EXAMPLE FOR RE-EMIGRATING PEOPLES OF THE EAST

What has characterized the painful suffering of the Tatar peoples was a process affecting all spheres of life in the Crimean hinterland, where a painful process of class stratification included the polarization into two groupings on the one hand of Kulak/Karaites, various colonists, new and local landowners and on the other the Tatar masses who found themselves caught in the mesh of back-breaking taxes during tsarist times. This was the miserable experience of the Tatar peoples. Devoid of land ownership, burdened by taxes, their ancestral-patriarchal socio-economic standing gone and cut off from their economic subsistence, oppressed by life’s hardships, this transformed a huge number of the people into a mass of the destitute...

These are the underlying reasons, which brought about a perpetual emigration of Tatars into Turkey. As we have seen, up to 600,000-700,000 persons emigrated from Crimea just in the first and second waves. The third wave of emigration out of Crimea, which occurred in 1889, was of 200,000 people. Thus, a final tally was though not conclusive, put Crimea losses at 800,000 – 900,000 people of the indigenous population.

Subsequent waves gained their own momentum by the mass killing of the best of the young generation in the Japanese war of 1904-1905 and the imperialistic war of 1914-1918 and during the last Civil War in which the Tatars suffered an inhumane and protracted terror at the hands of the White Russian Army and in ruthless requisitions. Death came in colossal numbers to impoverished Tatar masses from famine from 1921 to 1922. In the cities up to forty five percent of the total Tatar population died and in certain rural regions practically all died. This demonstrates the reasons which turned the Tatar population of Crimea, which until recently had been the overwhelming majority consisting of eighty nine percent of the population in 1897, into a minority whose share of the total population is twenty six percent at present. Amongst the emigrants and victims of wars, the indigenous population of Crimea lost its most revolutionary, most capable, motivated and virile elements. Those few that might have upheld the population on its shoulders above the morass of gloom and ignorance fled from the horrors of tsarism.

It is necessary to remember that the once populous Crimea of Tatars was a rich country, which was highly developed. Forests grew for centuries in the south, which now had been ruthlessly cut down in all accessible places. Beautiful gardens and vineyards were situated on artificial terraces irrigated by special canals and protected from downpours by man-made drainage. Fine fruit was grown in luscious gardens and was a staple crop of the Tatar population for trade. Wine making was abundant as was tobacco cultivation, beekeeping, sericulture, equine raising flourished and bread was abundant. The Tatars never needed anything.

The finished goods industry was known for leather tanning, highly ornate customized Eastern style weaponry, candle factories, and salt production. Large segments of the population made a living from hunting wild life in the forests.

In due part because of the familiarity of the returning emigrants with the country’s environment which had been acquired since ancient times and their ability to weather adverse climatic changes, their return to Crimea will allow them to renew their historic culture even in such places which are now dilapidated and are considered unsuitable for any level of development.

Returning Tatars can make use of their talents and their hard work. Being by their nature a capable people, they are able to foster personal ties with peoples of the East leading to trade relations. They will also take advantage of their proximity to the sea and the network of railroads will allow for increased sales of various products in the East as with countries of the USSR.

Of paramount importance is the re-emigration’s visibility and political significance to the oppressed peoples of the East. Quoting comrade Lenin: “The Small Crimean republic should be a shimmering light radiating on the proletarian revolution in the East.”

While Soviet power in the Crimea has been widely supported by the labor ranks of the Tatar population for having freed it from the Tsarist yoke, it has gained strength in spite of more than three years of presence of significant numbers of Denikin and Vrangel henchmen. Nevertheless, Soviet power will be more stable and steadfast by support from the best elements of the Tatar nation grateful for liberating it from the horrors of cohabitation with the marauding boyars of Romania and from the brutal excesses of the Bulgarian police officers’ boots and rapacious fascism.

The heralding of the October Revolution in the entire world has in considerable measure depended on awakening the East and the Crimean SSR should not play just a small role in this as a showcase for the peoples of the East. Only by a resurgence of the economic and spiritual strength of the Tatar population which has endured for centuries oppression and depredation, will the enslaved of the near and far East colonies have no misgivings that their fears of the predatory sharks of imperialism, of new terrible world wars and mutual extinction by hired gangs of the powerful, treacherous, armed to the teeth world predators, will be halted by overthrowing their own bourgeoisie in the East and the establishment of the dictatorship of the workers and peasants.

The re-emigration will have yet another strategic significance.

As an advanced post of the USSR, Crimea juts far out into the sea and is the most accessible to landings by armed gangs of imperial predators. It can easily turn into a foothold for intervention of mercenaries of imperialism into the USSR.

Having been seen even in 1762, before its annexation to Russia, strategically important, as in the reproduced below report to the empress Catherine the Second, presently it has a no less weighty significance.

“Russia should first and foremost strive to shake loose all aforementioned inconveniences and gain total security in that region. The location of the Crimea peninsula is of such importance, that it can be considered the key to Russian and Turkish domains; the longer it remains under Turkish sovereignty, it will always be a threat to Russia, and on the other hand, when it was under the control of Russia or when independent from all, it guaranteed the security of Russia resolutely and steadfastly. Whereas when the Azov and Black Sea where not under its control but threatened by the near-East and countries further south, it would lend itself to attract all trade.”- Main Archive of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Crimea Section, 1760, July/.

The present composition of the Tatar population of Crimea is that ninety percent are on the poverty level and ten percent are of average means. The influx of those emigrants with blood ties, language and class associations, with similar ideological mind sets, will add numbers of loyal brash, hot headed Dzhigits that will hold allegiance to Soviet power, ready at a moments notice to die for the Soviet homeland.

In addition the Crimean Tatar question can be used by Soviet power for defensive and offensive campaigns and encroachments into bourgeois-capitalist nationalist states neighboring the USSR which are hostile disposed against it, first and foremost of which are Rumania and Bulgaria where are settled emigrant Tatar Crimeans. The appearance of Tatar emigrant movements aimed at return to the USSR can be a starting point for a whole number of conflicts between the emigrants and the governments of the bourgeois and can serve as a inciter for awakening, strengthening and provocation of rural movements in those countries and will place in the hands of the Soviet power though which it will be possible to extend and to deepen the influence of the USSR in the corresponding classes of the Bulgarian and Romanian populations.

One should not forget that the Crimean Tatar question was fashioned as an emigration movement of Crimean and Caucasus Tatars inside Turkey as a ploy in the hands of the latter to extend political influence in Crimea and in the Caucasus and the main agenda for agitation and spreading its propaganda in the East.

The correct organization and solution of the re-emigration question of Crimean Tatars can be vis-a-vis relations with Turkey, the opportune time for the national emancipation of the Crimean Tatars away from the historical political influence of Turkey.

The re-emigration question of the Crimean Tatars in relation to Romania can bring about a new current in the Bessarabia question, and as pertains to Bulgaria, the opening needed to reconcile its overly vituperative reactionary inclinations and impulses.

At the same time, in Bulgaria, the peasant of average means and the Tatar emigration wave can be a counter weight against the Russian White army emigrant generals.<…>

The Russian Federation State
Archives, data bank 3316, item 64, c.49.
Pages 39-50 (reverse). - Mashkop.

NOTES

(1) ...to Anatolia and Rumelia provinces of Turkey...

Anatolia - the main part of Turkey is located on the peninsula of Asia Minor. Since 20s of the XX century, the whole Asian part of Turkey became named Anatolia.

Rumelia - in XIX-XXI centuries, Turkish name of states of Balkan Peninsula, which were joined by force to the dominions of the Ottoman sultans. From the end of the XYI century, when Balkan dominions were divided into number provinces, the biggest province was named Rumelia. After the Berlin congress in 1878, the southern part of Bulgaria, which was taken out of the Bulgarian principality and transformed into autonomous province of the Ottoman Empire, named East Rumelia: Being under the power of the Turkish sultan, who appointed with agreement of the great States the general-governor for 5 years. At the beginning of February 1886, Turkey actually recognized the consolidation of Bulgaria, and appointed a Bulgarian prince as general-governor.

(2) CC FR - Central Committee on Famine’s repercussions by AUCEC, was established in 1921.

(3) In July of 1923, a fascist revolution in Bulgaria took place. The fascist group headed by Tsankov took power. After an explosion in Sofia council (1925) a persecution of Communists were intensified. In Romania, since 1922, the National-liberal Party was in office, headed by the Bratianu family. From 1924, the Communist Party here was outlawed.

(4) Dessiatina - measurement of land area used in Russia since the XVth century. Most used was the dessiatina making 2400 square fathoms (=1,0925 hectares).

(5) Zubov, Platon Alexanderovich (1767-1822) - prince, Russian politician, favourite of Empress Katherine II. He occupied a number of public posts, in particular, a post as general-governor of Ekaterinoslavskyi, Voznesenskyi, and Tavricheskyi regions.

(6) Dessiatinshina and skupshina ("ispolshina") - form of natural lease of land. In the first case, the renter gives 1/10 of harvest to ground landlord, in second case, 1/2 or 3/4 of harvest and additional payment by way of different labour-rents.

(7) Menshikov, Alexander Sergeevich (1787-1869) - Russian military and diplomatic figure, general-adjutant, admiral, Commander-In-chief of Russian forces in Crimea during the Crimean War of 1853-1856’s. In 1853, he headed abortively a diplomatic mission in Constantinople. Since the beginning of the Crimean War he was appointed to be the Commander-In-chief of Russian land and sea forces in Crimea. He proved to be a talent less general. In the beginning of 1855, tsar Nikolay I had to shelve him under pressure of society.

(8) Berzhe, Adolf Petrovich (1828-1886) - archaeologist, researcher on Caucasus. Chairman of Caucasian Study of Early Texts Commission, which published under his editorship 10 volumes on the history of the joining of Caucasus to Russia.

(9) Dobrudzha - oblast in southeast Romania (from 1878).

(10) Bayazet I (1360-1403) - Turkish sultan. He mounted the throne after death of his father, sultan Murad I. He governed in 1389-1402. Continuing the conquest policy of his predecessors, Bayazet I occupied a number of territories in Europe and Asia. In 1396, he repulsed about Nikopol the Polish-Hungarian-French army. He established a factual protectorate over Lower Empire. In 1400, Timur’s invasion of Asia Minor put an end to the military successes of Bayazet I. In 1402, in a battle near Ankara he was defeated, captured and then died.

¹Supreme governmental bodies of USSR in 1922-1936s had been the Congresses of Soviets, and in intervening periods of congresses – Central Executive Committee. In competence of the Supreme governmental bodies were all public issues of All-Union importance.

²SPC of USSR – All-Union government in 1923-1946s. In competence of SPC of USSR was an organization of a direct control over national economy and branches of life. This control was realized through central branch people's commissariats.

³The guidebook. Vol. 3. Foundations of State Archives of Russian Federation on history of USSR. - М.: 1977, p.1, 2.

⁴P. Sudoplatov denotes that plan of re-emigration already existed in 1921, under Decree of All-Union CEC, which was not revoked up to now//P. Sudoplatov. Crimean California. http://www.fortunecity.com/loozers/grapes/293/zurnal/19101.htm.

⁵Report on agricultural settlement of Jewry in USSR. – State archive of Russian federation, further SARF, f.3316, i.17, c.313, l.139

⁶According to the body of Crimean regional party committee RCP (b) the newspaper “Krasnyi Krym”, “at session of the Committee on land settlement of able-bodied Jewry by AUEC of USSR was heard a report of Narkomzem (People’s Land Commissariat) of Crimea on allotment of 40,000 dessiatinas in Crimean ASSR for settlement of 1400 families of Jewry-settlers in 1925”. Apparently, this decision was adopted not without pressure of “top”, about which one can say with great certainty, comparing with different sources. //Krasnyi Krym, №14, 17 January 1925.

⁷Report on economic settlement of able-bodied Jewry in USSR. - SARF, f.3316, i.17, c.313, l.137

⁸Programme sheet of Crimean CEC and Sovnarkom (Soviet People's Land Commissariat) of Crimea //Krasnyi Krym, №20 or 21, 25 January 1925.

⁹Ibidem.

¹⁰Krasnyi Krym, 5 February 1925, №29.

¹¹Krasnyi Krim, 24 May 1925, № 116.

¹²Krasnyi Krim, 30 May 1925, №119.

¹³Krasnyi Krim, 7 July 1925, №151.

¹⁴M.I. Kalinin's answer on issue, for what did they established the Committee on emigration of Jewry: "All our other nationalities has no the Committee on emigration, because they have the autonomous republics and oblasts. Only our citizens of Jewish nationality have no own government, single <...> official body is Komzet".//Krasnyi Krim, 31. 07. 1926, № 173.

¹⁵As one imagines, the offered project on re-emigration of Crimean Tatars could be rejected because of economic and foreign policy considerations. At the same time, the Jewish colonization of Crimea had been realized by strong financial support of American Jewish "Agrojoint", but the expenses of re-emigration of Tatars were entirely covered by central bodies of government. M.I. Kalinin spoke quit distinctly on difficulties of emigration to Crimea, which connected with expenses on irrigation of many Crimean lands: "It is impossible to settle ordinary settlers on this land <...> for every dessiatinas necessary to spend as minimum 200 rubles <...> This sum can be gathered only abroad, that Jewry are doing." //Krasnyi Krim, 31.07.1926, №173. Complicated relationship between Russia and Bulgaria, Romania could play some role in declination of project.

¹⁶SA RF, f.3316, i.17, c.313, l.169

¹⁷Having no doubts that general-lieutenant KGB P.Sudoplatov has higher level of knowledge than common citizens on "secrets" of former Soviet Union. We cannot yet agree with his enough unambiguous handling on all ills of Crimean life in 1920-40s because of machination of "international Jewry". We cannot adopt as well a positive spirit of mentioned article by P. Sudoplatov, including that comprehensive factographic base, which appearance is quite cloudy explained by author. The documents and other sources, "which he found in archives of Crimea", - author doesn't think to concretize, indicating exact references of sources.

¹⁸G. Bordugov, V. Bukharayev. Natsionalnaya istoricheskaya misl v usloviyah sovetskogo vremeni (National historical idea in conditions of Soviet regime)//In book. Natsionalnii istorii v sovetskom i postsovetskih gosudarstvah (National histories in Soviet and postsoviet states). - M., 1999, p.62

^*SARF, f.3316, i.64, c. 49, 51 l. 13 January 1925 - 4 April 1925, 51 l. In l.51 resolution written by black ink in left over corner: "Submit to Presidium of CEC of the Union" crabbed signature, conceivably, by M.I. Kalinin. 4/IY25. Second resolution under title of document writing by blue pencil: "The issue is to consider in party procedure. While in archive 1/YII 25 (crabbed signature), presumably by Kalinin." (Kalinin Michael Ivanovitch – soviet politician. In 1922-1938 – Chairman of CEC of USSR.)

^**There are here and further black big letters in text of document.

^***Supposedly from Arabic word “salyakh” – blessing, well, godliness, righteousness; “salykh” – good, kind, righteous, godly.

¹⁹In text a word was missed. According to the tenor – "correction".

²⁰It means a survey between villages.

²¹Karasu, Burulcha – rivers in Crimea

²²People's Committee on Foreign Affairs

²³Signature is crabbed

²⁴"According to the Decree of AUCEC and SPC of RSFSR from 18 October 1921 was established, "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as a part of RSFSR <:>". The Constitution of present state formation was adopted on November 10, 1921 by All-Crimean Constitutive Congress of Soviets, which was named "The Constitution of Crimean Socialistic Soviet Republic", for its marking in text of Constitution were used some wordings "Crimean Socialistic Soviet Republic", "CrimSSR", "CSSR". According to Constitution, an inscription on flag was to be "CrimSSR", and on Blazon – "Crimean Socialistic Soviet Republic" (in Russian and Tatar). In accordance with Constitution, apparently, and was made an inscription on mentioned stamp".

²⁵It is not published

²⁶The word “kolybnyi” is derived from Crimean Tatar “kalyb” – special facilities-form for construction of walls of secondary hutting, mostly with using clay, straw, small stones.

²⁷It is not published

²⁸It means Ankara

²⁹See note on page 212