Political Repressions at Leningrad State University

Similar confessions were made by V. I. Kaminsky, the Associate Professor of the Faculty of Geology, Soil and Geography. According to his self-incriminatory statements, he was a member of a “counter-revolutionary group” that made a bomb for terrorist purposes and planned to assassinate Stalin as well as to perpetrate a terrorist attack on Zhdanov at the October demonstration in Leningrad Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloKaminskogo V. I. // Ibid. D. n-14865. L. 25.. However, Kaminsky himself, according to the interrogation transcripts, did not dare to be a perpetrator of the terrorist attack, and the bomb that he had allegedly made did not appear as material evidence at the trial.

Associate Professor of the Faculty of Physics A. P. Konstantinov was charged with making a bomb disguised as a seismograph for the physical elimination of Stalin Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloKonstantinova A. P. // Ibid. D. n-18240. L. 16-17.. Since Konstantinov was known as the inventor of electric seismograph, this version put forward by the investigation is not surprising. Konstantinov fully admitted his guilt and was executed, although, according to the interrogation record, he did not do anything in practice to create a bomb. Meanwhile, his daughter and some of his colleagues for many years wrote petitions to various authorities requesting the release of the scientist. They believed that Konstantinov as a talented inventor ( he is considered to have been an inventor of electronic television in addition to seismographs), might have been still alive, working at a sharashka A secret research and development laboratory operating within the Soviet Gulag labor-camp system..

The case file of the Dean of the Faculty of Physics V. R. Bursian also contains the testimony of belonging to a “counterrevolutionary organization” that in total compised 12 members. Primarily they were planning to physically eliminate Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and Kaganovich, although, according to the interrogation transcripts, Bursian himself did not know anything about the practical preparation of these attacks Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloBursiana V. R. // Arkhiv UFSB RossiipoSPbi LO. D. n-19547. L. 10-16.. Associate Professor of the Department of Political Economy P. F. Babaylov made a partial confession to “counterrevolutionary conversations after drinking alcohol together” as well as to having organizational relations with Trotskyists. However, at the trial, he attempted to clear himself of these charges saying that perhaps counter-revolutionary conversations had taken place, but he was completely drunk and did not remember anything Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloBabailova P. F. // Ibid. D. n-30712: in 2 vols. Vol. 2. L. 12-13.. Nonetheless, it was all in vain and did not help him as the sentence, pronounced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court, was 10 years of imprisonment. In 10 months after being sentenced, he was executed by the decision of “Special troika”, as his name was included into a “shooting list” together with 181 other prisoners.

M. P. Bronstein, the Associate Professor of the Faculty of Physics and a science pop- ularizer, who pleaded guilty, was also sentenced to capital punishment. He allegedly participated in the “organization for the liberation of the intelligentsia”, which “stood on the positions of terrorism”. Despite the fact that Bronstein knew nothing about the practical preparation of terrorist attacks, such confessions were enough for a death sentence Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloBronshteina M. P // Ibid. D. n-22962. L. 31-32.. Hs wife, Lydia Chukovskaya, the daughter of a famous children's writer as well as members of the Academy of Sciences S. I. Vavilov and V. A. Fok, futilely appealed to various authorities asking to release the scientist, but by that time he was no longer alive.

V. M. Gortikov, the Associate Professor of the Faculty of Biology, even admitted participating in two counterrevolutionary organizations simultaneously -- “The Union of Young Russians” and “The National Union of the New Generation” associated with white emigrants and Trotskyist terrorist networks. Having confessed to the propaganda of terrorism, Gortikov actually signed up his own death warrant, although the investigation, like in many other similar cases, did not produce any physical evidence of his guilt Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloGortikova V. M. // Arkhiv UFSB RossiipoSPbi LO. D. n-18552: in 2 vols. Vol. 2. L. 1-2..

According to the handwritten testimony of the Dean of the Faculty of History A. K. Drezen, he was also a member of two “counter-revolutionary organizations” at the same time. As a Latvian by ethnic origin, Drezen was an active member of the Latvian national insurgent terrorist organization, whose goal was to create a “Greater Latvia” at the expense of the territory of the USSR and Estonia. He was also involved in the establishment of sabotage cells among the former Latvian Riflemen in Leningrad and near the Latvian border. However, according to his own confessions, Drezen had completely forgotten the Latvian language while working in Leningrad, which made it difficult for him to recruit Latvian Riflemen. In addition, Drezen admitted that he had been informed about Tukhachevsky's plot and had directly participated in it along with his brother who lived in Moscow. Together with the other conspirators, they planned to assassinate Stalin, Voroshilov, and Kaganovich, to arrest Molotov and Kalinin, and then to try them for state crimes Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloDrezena A. K. // Ibid. D. n-28374. L. 85-111.. There is no doubt that these confessions were quite enough for a death sentence, and in the end Drezen was executed despite his working-class and peasant origin.

According to the materials of the confrontation, Professors of the Faculty of Physics P. P. Kuznetsov and S. P. Poletaev had even more sophisticated plans of “massive terrorist attacks” on Soviet leaders. Kuznetsov testified that they had intended to assassinate the leadership of the VKP(b) “not shooting them individually, but firing a machine gun and throwing bombs during public holidays, when all the Soviet leaders were in the stands” Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloKuznetsova L. L. // Ibid. D. n-27633. L. 64.. Not surprisingly, Kuznetsov was sentenced to capital punishment, but Poletaev was luckier as he received a 10-year prison sentence Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloPoletaeva S. P. // Ibid. D. n-27636. L. 203..

Another important issue concerns the role of guilty pleas in political repressions. Apparently, in order to make the suspects plead guilty, the investigative authorities exerted psychological and sometimes physical pressure on them. According to the convicts who returned from Gulag, in some cases the torture was also used. However, it is possible that the pressure exerted on each suspect was different and depended on the investigator. The torture must have been used not very often, since otherwise, all or almost all of the suspects would have admitted their guilt. For example, in the testimony of Professor of the Department of Dialectical Materialism T. N. Gornstein there is no mention of the use of torture against her, although she heard screams and sounds of beatings from neighboring cells at night. Therefore, she assumed that physical methods were used against some of the suspects Gornshtein L. Z.Nochnoidnevnik.P. 33.. Despite nine interrogations and five months of pre-trial detention, Gornstein denied all charges of terrorism and admitted connections and meetings with Trotskyists only at work. At the same time, in contrast to her, Gornsteins husband I. A. Weisberg con-

firmed the “organizational link” of his wife with the Trotskyists and denounced her as “a participant of Trotskyist illegal gatherings” Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloGornshtein T. N. // Arkhiv UFSB RossiipoSPbi LO. D. n-38815. L. 109,

124..

According to another suspect, Professor of Physics at LGU P I. Lukirsky, who at the same time held the post of the Director of Physics Research Institute, “illegal investigative methods” were used against him as he was deprived of sleep and forced to stay upright for many hours in a row, sometimes for more than a day Frenkel` V. Ia.Trudnyegody Petra IvanovichaLukirskogo // Zvezda. 1996. No. 10.P. 185.. However, Lukirsky did not complain about having been beaten during pre-trial detention Lepeshinskaia V. N.Oskolkivospominanii.Chteniiapamiati A. F. Ioffe 1993-1995.St. Petersburg, 1995.P. 133.. The screams of other prisoners were also heard by LGU Associate Professor M. M. Yermolaev, who was deprived of sleep and forced to “stand for days” in a solitary cell Yermolaev M. M.Vospominaniia. P. 231-232.. As we can see, not all the suspects pleaded guilty, and thus we can conclude that the pressure of the investigation exerted on them could be different.

As a rule, the investigation had enough time to obtain the necessary evidence as the pre-trial detention could last from 2 to 10 months. During this time, the suspect could have been interrogated up to 9 times, as normally in the case files of the LGU teachers several interrogation transcripts can be found. In reality, according to some suspects (for example, Professor of Mathematics N. I. Idelson Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloIdel'sona N. I. // Arkhiv UFSB RossiipoSPbi LO. D. n-35013. L. 145.), the number of interrogations could have been even larger since the information obtained during several interrogations was compiled in a single transcript. For example, the case file of Professor P. I. Lukirsky contains only two transcripts of interrogation, but judging by the text of these documents it is clear that the suspect was interrogated many times: “for a long period of time you denied that.. .” Frenkel' V. Ia.Trudnyegody Petra IvanovichaLukirskogo.P. 188. With such long pre-trial detention and numerous interrogations, the investigators could obtain confessions without using the torture itself, but by creating such conditions for the suspects when they would be ready to confess to everything themselves.

Most of interrogation transcripts share several similarities: at the first interrogation, the suspects usually strongly denied participation in counter-revolutionary organizations, but later most of them gradually admitted to counter-revolutionary conversations first, then -- to approval of terrorism as a method of fighting against the Soviet government, and finally confessed to planning terrorist attacks on the country's top leadership. It is highly unlikely that such confessions, which in fact guaranteed the suspects either the death penalty or a long-term imprisonment, were obtained without putting physical or psychological pressure on them. For example, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Geography M. M. Yermolaev wrote in his memoirs that he had pleaded guilty in order not to go through so-called “processing” by the interrogators one more time Yermolaev M. M.Vospominaniia. P. 236.. In his testimony, he deliberately called himself a French spy because he did not speak French. In doing so, he hoped that at the court session the absurdity of such self-incrimination would become evident. However, he was wrong as it turned out that no one cared about such small details at the trial.

The main suspect in the “Pulkovo Affair”, Professor of Physics B. V. Numerov, in his complaint to the Prosecutor's Office, also wrote that he had been forced to sign false records containing only allegations without any substantial evidence. Having signed them, Numerov assumed that without any facts it would be impossible to find him guilty. The list of Numerov's “confessions” in the case file is huge as he was convicted under five paragraphs (6, 7, 8, 10, and 11) of article 58 of the RSFSR Criminal Code. He confessed to working to overthrow the Soviet government and establish a fascist dictatorship, to recruiting terrorists, to counter-revolutionary propaganda, to subversion and sabotage, to industrial espionage for Germany and to using German agents in order to transfer classified information on some inventions, including those which were created by Nu- merov himself, as well as to many other terrible crimes. At the same time, later, while being in prison, Numerov in his petitions to various authorities pointed out a number of inconsistencies in his case. For example, according to the testimony of Associate Professor of Physics A. S. Sluchanovsky, who denounced Numerov as a counterrevolutionary conspirator, in June 1936 the latter allegedly took part in the “illegal meeting” in Leningrad, although in fact at the time Numerov was on an expedition and observed a solar eclipse Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloNumerovaB. V. // Arkhiv UFSB Rossii poSPbiLO. D. n-23060: in 4 vols. Vol. 4. L. 206-207.. Unfortunately, all Numerov's complaints and letters did not have any effect, and his case was not reviewed. Numerov was executed in Orel during the World War II on September 15, 1941 by the decision of the USSR Military Collegium of the Supreme Court, when German troops were approaching the city.

At the same time, the probability that these confessions may have been the result of a plea deal and in return the suspects may have been given certain promises cannot be ruled out. However, on the basis of the available case files it is hardly possible to say to what extent these promises were kept by the investigators.

Among the teachers under investigation were those who strongly denied all the charges and did not confess to anything. Therefore, it can be concluded that not all the suspects were tortured, and some NKVD officers did not aim at extracting confessions from them at any cost. For example, Professor of the Faculty of History G. V. Abramovich initially was told by the investigator that there was no substantial evidence against him, but later he was informed that the situation had changed, and a conviction was inevita- ble This information is contained in the complaint of GlebAbramovich, which he sent to the NKVD in order to obtain a review of the sentence. See: Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloAbramovichaG. V. // Ibid. D. n-19347: in 2 vols. Vol. 1. L. 150.. Despite the suspect's plea of not guilty, G. V. Abramovich was sentenced by the Special Council of the NKVD to 5 years imprisonment “for counterrevolutionary activities” but avoided the capital punishment. After serving his first sentence, he was re-sentenced to exile for three years, and upon completion of the exile, in the 1960s, G. V. Abramovich worked as a Director of a secondary school in Leningrad.

Assistant Lecturer of the faculty of Geology, Soil and Geography E. A. Popov, who also did not plead guilty, instead of putting his signature in the interrogation records, even dared to write “in this wording, I cannot sign it” Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloPopova E. A. // Ibid. D. n-18315. L. 22.. Subsequently, at the trial, he categorically denied the charges of preparing a terrorist attack on Stalin but was nevertheless sentenced to 10 years in labor camps. Professor of the Faculty of History, N. I. Ulyanov, who also denied organizational links with terrorists and counter-revolutionaries, got a relatively lenient sentence of 5 years in correctional labor camps Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloUl'ianova N. I. // Ibid. D. n-71288. L. 20.. His future was more fortunate as after being released N. Ulyanov managed to emigrate to the United States where he taught at Yale University and continued his career as a historian.

The former Dean and Professor of the Faculty of History, S. M. Dubrovsky, also vigorously denied all the charges. At the interrogation, he said that the investigation should identify real Trotskyists and conspirators instead of persecuting innocent people Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloDubrovskogo S. M. // Ibid. D. n-52073. L. 10.. Since Dubrovsky was denounced by the testimonies of other suspects, he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, but luckily was not executed and after the death of Stalin worked as a historian in Moscow. Professor and the head of the Department of Dialectical Materialism A. G. Kogan Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloKogana A. G. // Ibid. D. n-21287. L. 23 as well as Professor of the Faculty of Biology E. M. Kreps Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloKrepsa E. M. // Ibid. D. n-71715. L. 25., also pleaded not guilty to participating in the Trotskyist-Zinoviev plot and received relatively lenient sentences of 5 years in correctional labor camps. As we can see, most of the LGU teachers who did not admit their guilt ultimately avoided capital punishment, and this tactic of behavior during the investigation was more advantageous for them.

Within the framework of the current article the role of various judicial and extrajudicial bodies that passed sentences on LGU teachers was also examined. Most of them were convicted at the field session of the Military Collegium of the USSR Supreme Court chaired by the corps military lawyer I. O. Matulevich, who was subsequently expelled from the Communist party and lost the rank of the Lieutenant-General of Justice for violation of the law in the period of mass repressions. Some suspects were tried by the Special Council of the NKVD (the so-called Special troika of the NKVD) and by the Commission of the NKVD and the USSR Prosecutor (the so-called “Big dvoika”). The last three bodies were extrajudicial, i.e. the decisions were made in absentia, without summoning suspects, and sentences were passed not individually but according to lists.

The Military Collegium of the Supreme Court, although being a judicial body, also used expedited trial proceedings. Only the suspect was brought before the Military Collegium, the defense and witnesses were not allowed, and the trial itself usually lasted from 20 minutes to 1 hour. It was also impossible to appeal against the verdict since according to the decree of the Presidium of the USSR Central Executive Committee “On the Procedure for Prosecuting the Cases on Preparation and Perpetration of Acts of Terrorism” of 1 December 1934, the suspects sentenced to capital punishment were supposed to be executed immediately either on the day of the trial or the next day.

Thus, there were only few substantial differences in the decisions of the Military Collegium and extrajudicial bodies as both of them used expedited trial proceedings and the suspects had little or no chances of proving their innocence in such circumstances. The only difference between them was that at the session of the Military Collegium the suspect could completely or partially recant his testimony or claim that he had signed the interrogation transcripts being in a “poor health”. For example, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Geology, Soil and Geography S. V. Voskresensky recanted all the confessions he had made during the investigation, namely subversion and sabotage at the Hydrological Institute, preparation of terrorist attacks using hydrometric instruments, recruitment of terrorists, and many others Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloVoskresenskogo S. V. // Arkhiv UFSB RossiipoSPbi LO. D. n-24617. L. 162-170.. A similar course of action was chosen by Assistant Lecturer of the Faculty of Biology S. I. Gorshkov, who claimed at the trial that his testimony in the interrogation transcripts was not accurate, and that he had torn up the indictment handed to him after the end of the investigation to be signed Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloGorshkova S. I. // Ibid. D. n-62510. L. 57.. As a result, Gorshkov and Voskresensky managed to avoid capital punishment and were sentenced to 10 years in correctional labor camps.

In a situation where the suspect did not plead guilty, he had to explain why the others gave incriminating statements against him. The key factor was whether the suspect and the denouncer were on bad terms or not. If there was no hostile relationship between them, it was almost impossible for the suspect to prove his innocence. For example, despite pleading not guilty, Professor of the Faculty of History M. D. Kokin was sentenced to capital punishment. At the trial he was unable to explain what motives the other suspects had had to testify against him Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloKokina M. D. // Ibid. D. n-18317. L. 78..

Another University lecturer, Professor of the Department of Dialectical Materialism P. L. Kucherov, claimed during the court hearing that all the incriminating denunciations had been a personal vengeance of those who had hostile relationship with him. In addition, he refused to sign the interrogation records because it was not indicated there that he had been opposed to Trotskyism before the arrest. Firstly, Kucherov was sentenced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court to 10 years imprisonment, but 10 months later he was executed by the decision of a Special troika of the NKVD of the Leningrad Region Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloKucherova P. L. // Ibid. D. n-18212. L. 30-31..

On rare occasions where the cases were referred to a regular court, a lawyer was involved in the litigation, and the suspects could expect more lenient sentences. For example, Professor of Mathematics N. I. Idel'son was sentenced by the Special Collegium of the Court of the Leningrad Region to only three years imprisonment under article 58-10 for counter-revolutionary propaganda Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloIdel'sona N. I. // Ibid. D. n-35013. L. 74., and this was an extremely rare case when the suspect was not charged with anything else except “counter-revolutionary conversations”. It can thus be concluded that at the time of political repressions in the 1930s, the severity of the sentence largely depended on the type of judicial body that considered the case.

The fate of many convicted LGU teachers was unfortunate since more than half of them were either executed or died while in prison. This happened, for example, to the Director of LGU M. S. Lazurkin, who, according to the investigation records, committed suicide by throwing himself out of the window during the interrogation Arkhivno-ugolovnoedeloLazurkina M. S. // Ibid. D. n-3449. L. 34.. Under another version, he was killed by the investigator while being interrogated, after which his body was thrown out of the window to stage the suicide Brim R A.Sochineniia. Volgograd, 2007.. We'll probably never find out what really happened there. However, Lazurkin's signature in the last interrogation transcript, where he allegedly admits being recruited by Bukharin as a member of the counter-revolutionary organization of the Right Opposition in Leningrad, is quite different from Lazurkin's signature in other documents, and most likely it was forged by the investigator.

Apart from that, the verdicts passed at the field sessions of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court in 1936 could be revised later, and the convicts could be re-sentenced to stiffer penalties. According to the decision of Special troika of the NKVD and other extrajudicial bodies, capital punishment was applied to some teachers who were already serving their sentences. This is what happened to B. V. Numerov (the Professor of Physics and the Director of the Astronomical Institute), P. F. Babaylov (the Associate Professor of Political Economy), P. L. Kucherov (the Professor of Dialectical Materialism) See case files of LGU teachers: Arkhiv UFSB RossiipoSPbi LO.. Many of the convicted teachers after serving their sentences were exiled in the 1940s. This was the fate of T. N. Gornstein (the Professor of Dialectical Materialism), S. M. Dubrovsky (the Professor and Dean of the Faculty of History), S. V. Voskresensky (the Associate Professor of the Faculty of Geology, Soil and Geography), G. V. Abramovich (the Associate Professor of the Faculty of History) and some others Ibid..

To sum up, we can draw a number of conclusions about the specific features of political repressions at LGU in the 1930s. Firstly, in percentage terms the scale of repressions at the University was approximately 10 times higher than in the USSR as a whole. This is due to the special attention of the NKVD and Soviet authorities to the intellectual elite to which the Leningrad professorship belonged. Secondly, within the current study it was not possible to identify the only “target group” of University teachers who were repressed in the first place. At the same time, most often the victims were middle-aged male teachers occupying the positions of Professor or Associate Professor, Russian or Jewish by their ethnic origin, while their party affiliation and participation in the Revolution of 1917 as well as their service in the armed forces were not predominant. Thirdly, it is quite obvious that most of the University teachers did not commit the crimes that they were charged with. As a rule, there was no physical evidence in the case files, and instead the NKVD mostly used confessions and incriminating statements of other suspects. Fourthly, the investigation sought to present any meetings of teachers at the University or elsewhere as “illegal gatherings of counter-revolutionary terrorists” who allegedly were making sophisticated plans for the physical elimination of Soviet leaders. At the same time, the severity of the sentence against LGU teachers depended primarily on which body -- judicial or extrajudicial -- was considering the case, and on whether the suspects pleaded guilty or not. In order to obtain the necessary confessions, it is highly likely that the suspects were subjected to psychological and physical pressure by the investigators, but the torture is unlikely to have been used against all the LGU teachers under arrest.

References

1. Amosova A. A. Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repressions (Based on the Records of the “Leningrad affair”).NoveishaiaistoriiaRossii, 2011, no. 1, pp. 153-159. (In Russian)

2. Andreeva V. V. A Forgotten Name: the Destiny of a Young Historian and Ethnographer Evgeniy (Ein) SolomonovichLeibovich. Akademik A. S. Lappo-Danilevskii v pamiatinauchnogosoobshchestva.Eds V. V. Kozlovskii, A. V. Malinov. St. Petersburg, Intersotsis Publ., 2019, pp. 646-656. (In Russian) Brachev V. S. Ia. M. Zakher Affair. Obshchestvo.Sreda.Razvitie, 2012, no. 2 (23), pp. 41-45. (In Russian) Brachev V. S. “The Affair” of Professor N. I. Ul'ianov (1904-1985). Obshchestvo.Sreda.Razvitie, 2013, no. 2 (27), pp. 53-57. (In Russian)

3. Brachev V. S. Historian IsaakMoiseevich Trotsky (1903-1937). NoveishaiaistoriiaRossii, 2015, no. 3 (14), pp. 69-79. (In Russian)

4. Brachev V. S. Historian M. M. Tsvibak and his Destiny (1899-1937). Obshchestvo.Sreda.Razvitie, 2008, no. 2 (7), pp. 33-54. (In Russian)

5. Brachev V S. Historian Vladimir NikolaevichKashin (1890-1938). Obshchestvo.Sreda.Razvitie, 2019, no. 2 (51), pp. 3-9. (In Russian)

6. Brachev V S. The Road to Calvary of the Russian Historian.Member of the Academy of Sciences S. F. Platonov and his “Affair”. St. Petersburg, Stomma Publ., 2005, 435 p. (In Russian)

7. Brim V. A. Writing. Volgograd, VGIPK RO Press, 2007, 224 p. (In Russian)

8. Frenkel' V. Difficult Years of PetrIvanovichLukirsky.Zvezda, 1996, no. 10, pp. 179-197. (In Russian)

9. Gessen V. Iu. The Tragic Fate of AleksandrAlekseevichVoznesensky, a Rector of Leningrad University. Mavrodinskiechteniia -- 2018.MaterialyVserossiiskoinauchnoikonferentsii, posviashchennoi 110-le- tiiu so dniarozhdeniiaprofessoraVladimiraVasilevichaMavrodina.Ed. by A. Yu.Dvornichenko. St. Petersburg, Nestor-Istoriia Publ., 2018, pp. 598-602. (In Russian)

10. Gornshtein L. Z. The Night Diary.St. Petersburg, 2013. 155 p. (In Russian)

11. Ermolaev M. M. The Memories of Mikhail Ermolaev.Co-written with Tamara L'vova. Petrozavodsk, [s. n.], 2009, 255 p. (In Russian)

12. Korsakov S. N. Political Repressions in the Institute of Philosophy (1930-1940s). Filosofskiizhurnal. 2012, no. 1 (8), pp. 120-170. (In Russian)

13. Lepeshinskaia V. N. Fragments of Memories.Chteniiapamiati A. F Ioffe 1993-1995.St. Petersburg, Fiziko- tekhnicheskiiinstitutim. A. F. Ioffe RAN Press, 1995, pp. 125-135. (In Russian)

14. Luneev V. V. Criminality in the 20^th century. Global, regional and Russian trends: global criminological analysis. Moscow, Norma Publ., 1997, 497 p. (In Russian)

15. Skvortsov A. M. The Ruin of the Antiquity Circle in Leningrad (Based on the investigations' data from Federal Security Service records).Vestnikdrevneiistorii, 2017, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 210-223. (In Russian)

16. Sobolev G. L., Khodiakov M. V. Losses of the Leningrad University during the Great Patriotic War. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University.History, 2010, iss. 2, pp. 14-23. (In Russian)

Размещено на Allbest.ru