Disadvantages in the Activities of the Tyumen Regional Committee of the VKP(b)-CPSU in 1945-1952 Through the Eyes of Delegates of Tyumen Regional Party Conferences

The article discusses issues related to the activities of the Tyumen Regional Committee of the VKP(b)-CPSU in the period from the creation of Tyumen Oblast to the last party conference of the Tyumen Regional Party Organization during the rule of Joseph Stalin. The events of that time affected the initial period of work of the regional committee, the period of its functioning in the conditions of the apogee of the system of personal power. The regional conferences of the VKP(b)- CPSU were a prerequisite for communication among members and candidates for membership in the party designed to facilitate their greater unity, their discussion of the problems the party was faced with. The conferences were to provide feedback between higher- and lower-level party bodies realizing the principle of democratic centralism proclaimed in the Charter of the VKP(b). In the period from 1945 to 1952, four regional party conferences were held in Tyumen Oblast: the first on 21-23 December 1945, the second on 22-24 December 1948, the third on 2729 December 1950, and the fourth on 17-19 September 1952. Criticism of the regional party committee can be divided into several conventional blocks: questions relating to the interaction of the regional committee of the party with grass-roots party organizations, in which the evaluation of the activity of secretaries and instructors of the regional committee of the VKP(b) became important; issues related to the work of the regional committee with the staff; problems of propaganda and party education, as well as interaction of the regional committee with business entities. It is on these aspects that attention is focused in this article. Thus, in the above speeches made by the delegates of the Tyumen regional party conferences of 1945-1952, one can see that the speakers were concerned with the negative aspects of the Soviet centralized command and administrative system of leadership: (1) it was based on authoritarianism and voluntarism that did not take into account the importance of feedback; (2) it was rather slow due to bureaucratic delays and lack of personal interest in the result; (3) the subordinate personnel/organizations/territories were ignorant; (4) the higher authorities required the solution of problems without knowing how to solve them and fearing to bear responsibility not only at the level of action, but also at the level of words; (5) the system was enclosed on the figure of the First Secretary of the regional party committee. It was against this bureaucratic dictatorship that the leading party leaders directed their criticism, which showed the latent discontent of the administrative and economic entities of the system by the system itself and implicitly influenced its subsequent weakening and destruction.

Keywords

Authors

References