The article considers the war memorialization in the USSR of the post-war years in the context of Ch. Aitmatov’s novel “And The Day Lasts Longer Than A Century”. Authors’ attention is paid primarily to the symbolism of the novel. The symbolism is both in its text and in the novel’s title itself. It is the symbolism that allows the authors to consider the novel not only as fiction but also as a historiosophic text. The article describes the main quality of the war memorialization in 1945-1980. It is a competition of different generations’ historic memories - the memory of the generation that survived the war and the memory of the generation that was born much later. In that regard the authors define two value orientations outlining the framework for such a memorialization. The article analyzes reasons for the legitimation of the present through the past. It also raises the question of an “intermediate state”, of external and internal factors that determine it, and an issue of the memory’s existence in the transition from one state to another. Besides, the article analyzes the historic policy of the Soviet state and its influence on the memory of the Great Patriotic War. It includes the methods for creating images of the war and their translation to different generations.

The historiography of any historically significant phenomenon goes through several stages in its development. At the beginning - it is the reaction of contemporaries to the event they experienced, which is emotional in nature and is expressed in a journalistic form. The next stage can be called a retrospective understanding of the event by its actual participants or witnesses, and only at the third stage there does appear the objective scientific research bringing value-neutral assessments of the phenomenon under study and belonging to subsequent generations of researchers. The history of The Russian Diaspora and most notably of the Russian post-revolutionary emigration passed to the full through all the stages of the issue historiography. The third stage of its studying dates from the late 1980s and is characterized by a scientific, politically unbiased study of the phenomenon of the Russian emigration community, expanding the source base and scientific research methods. During the Soviet period in Russian historiography, owing to ideological reasons, researchers ‘ access to archival documents was limited, which is why scientific study of the history of the Russian Diaspora was not possible. Western researchers also could not fully develop that issue, since they were deprived of important sources kept in Russian archives. Political changes in the perestroika years and especially in the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union increased attention to the Russian Diaspora, which was facilitated by a change in scientific paradigms, methodological principles, the opening of archives and, as a result, the expansion of the source base necessary for studying that issue. The historiography of the Russian Diaspora, which has been formed for more than thirty years, needs to be understood. The article provides a brief analysis of the historiography, identifies the main directions of its development, the research problematics, and defines shortcomings and prospects.

The article describes the evolution of the ideas about the of social and economic nature and political structure of pre-Columbian societies of Mesoamerica of the founder of the theory of “hydraulic society” Karl Wittfogel (1896-1988). An analysis of Wittfogel’s early publications shows that he initially attributed Mesoamerica to the type of oriental “feudal” societies that did not develop a despotic-type state. The change of this position was connected to the contacts with the Mesoamericanists like Paul Kirchhoff and Pedro Carrasco and cooperation with Julian Steward. Wittfogel’s theoretical ideas had an important impact on the position of Angel Palerm, who formulated his own concept of the emergence of urban civilization in Mesoamerica. The work of Palerm and Pedro Armillas, in their turn, contributed to the final formulation of Wittfogel’s views of the pre-Hispanic history. In “Oriental Despotism” (1957), Wittfogel suggested that civilization in Mesoamerica was based on hydraulic system and separated two regional variants. The first, defined as semi-complex (“loose”) hydraulic society (subtype L2), includes the states of Central Mexico (Aztec and Texcoco). The second called “marginal hydraulic societies substantial hydraulic elements” (subtype M1) was represented by the lowland Maya.

The article is focused on the first Soviet All-Union Agricultural Exhibition and the participation of German industrialists in it, in particular the Friedrich Krupp Company. Following the documents from the Russian State Archive of Economics, as well as a wide range of periodicals the author shows that the Soviet exhibition was positively reviewed by Western businessmen as an extremely important political event, but foreign entrepreneurs had to face a number of challenges associated with the special nature of the Soviet economic system. Despite the difficult conditions set by the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Trade (NKVT) of the USSR for exhibitors, German companies could maintain a general enthusiasm, largely due to the awareness of the special political significance of the event and the personal motivation of individual participants. The author examines the peculiarities of realizing the personal ambitions of entrepreneurs in the context of the Soviet exhibition on the example of the Friedrich Krupp Company. Participation in the exhibition was a logical continuation of the Krupp development in the agricultural field. Krupp became a guide to the world of advanced agricultural technologies and used an every opportunity to strengthen ties with the Russian market, continuing to develop cooperation that began with the organization of an agricultural concession in the south of Soviet Russia.

The article analyzes modern approaches to studying the social stratification of Soviet society in the 1917-1930’s in the humanities. Modern science is characterized by an interest in social stratification within the framework of sociology. Among the scholars of that science there is a rejection of the classical representation for the stratification of society whereas a new theoretical approach is created, associated with an idea of the existence of more than three classes in Soviet society (works by Zinaida T. Golenkova, Vladimir I. Ilyin and Ovsei I. Shkaratan). In the 21st century, social stratification becomes the object for studying by some culture researchers exemplarily Irina V. Glushchenko considers classes through the prism of the formation of the food culture by the Soviet government. The today history formed several approaches to the study of the concept: works within the framework of the new social history (Sh. Fitzpatrick), among which the study of social stratification in its connection with public catering (E.V. Barysheva, A.A. Ilyukhov, T.S. Kondrat’eva); research conducted using methods of the everyday history (for example, Sh. Fitzpatrick, Natalia B. Lebina, E.A. Osokina, etc.).

The article reveals an evolution of political ideologies in Canada in 1993-2019. Following the Russian and foreign historiography, as well as the election programs of Conservatives and Liberals, the author analyzes the influence of political ideologies on the voting of Canadian voters in parliamentary elections in the late 20^th - early 21^st centuries. The author of the article comes to the conclusion that Canada is still a country committed to political ideologies. He also considers as unacceptable the thesis about an absence of ideologies in Canada within the existing post-industrial society.

The author believes that the model for political development of Canada, laid down in the second half of the 19^th century by the founders of the state, is still effective at the present time. In a post-industrial society, Canada clearly follows national traditions based on previously developed political ideologies. That is what constitutes the foundation for the rule-of-law state and civil society in Canada. The author emphasizes that, despite the activities of other political movements, conservative and liberal ideologies represent the leading directions of the state development in Canada. Other political ideologies, like social democracy, are largely secondary and do not determine the present and future of the Canadian state.

The article is dedicated to the analysis of the concept of sharp power, its nature, basic characteristics and tools. Sharp power was introduced by American scientists Ch. Walker and D. Ludwig at the end of 2017 as an alternative version of soft power inherent only in totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. American researchers claim that sharp power has a set of tools such as data falsification, cyber-attacks, propaganda, manipulation of news streams, etc., and it’s aim is to undermine and discredit on Western-style democracies and democratic values in general.

The author puts in doubt the statements of Western scholars that sharp power is inherent exclusively to authoritarian powers, to which they include Russia, China, Iran and several other countries. Moreover, the heuristic significance of the concept of sharp power is called into question. Also, based on the analytical work done, the author of the article offers her own version of the translation of the term sharp power into Russian language. In the conclusion, she offers a critical assessment of the concept, rather as an ideological phenomenon aimed at forming favorable attitudes to its ideologues in the international foreign policy discourse, than as a scientific concept, which is synonymous with soft power and smart power.

The paper analyzes the political and religious activities of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the most famous politicians of modern Iran. His political and religious activities from youth to the end of his life are subject of the study. In particular, three periods of his life are of interest here: his acquaintance with Ayatollah Khomeini and studying, religious activity before the Islamic revolution, and religious activity after the Islamic revolution. It is clear that Rafsanjani paid much attention to the study of the Quran and Islamic law, and after the Islamic revolution, he sought to promote religious ideas and Islamic legal regulations among Iranians. At the same time, after the revolution, Raf-sanjani became very actively involved in the political life of Iran, occupying key positions in the main government bodies, including the presidency, as a result of what his own religious activity decreased significantly, although he nonetheless sought to combine politics and religion. The paper states that Rafsanjani took a moderate and pragmatic political position and changed his views depending on the circumstances in which the country found itself.

The article examines the question of the women religious mentorship in modern Iran. It is shown that Iranian theologians differed in their opinion whether a woman can be a religious mentor (marja): many of them supported it, others agreed to it only if she should mentor other women, and many others, including Ayatollah Khomeini, opposed it. Brief biographies of two most prominent female marjas are given: those of Nesrat Amin and Zah-ra Sefati. Both of them received a permission to interpret Islamic texts from distinguished Iranian ayatollahs. With their initiative and eagerness for knowledge, they managed to succeed in Shiite theology and their works were highly regarded by Iranian ayatollahs. It is evident that their activities were closely linked to important events that happened in Iranian society during their lifetime: the Constitutional Revolution, anti-religious Shah regime, Islamic Revolution. Currently due to increase in the education and social activity among women, a need arose to officially allow women to become marja. Today, in Iran there works the Women Council on Islamic Law, what allows to expand the role of women in development of Islamic Law.

The political regime in Iran is based on the unity of Islamic and republican principles. The religious elite exercise the monopoly power in the country, controlling the secular elective institutions. In this regard, the legitimation of the Supreme Leader, who has all the power in the country, is very important. US leaders and Iranian foreign opposition consistently criticize the Islamic regime, accusing it of massive repression of the opposition and of the inability to successfully rule the country. The Supreme Leader yet proves the necessity of his power by the statement that the regime created in Iran (being the best possible in the world, since it best corresponds to Islamic teachings) is a true democracy, unlike the regimes in the West, and can satisfy the essential needs of the Iranian people. He believes that if a secular regime is established in Iran under pressure from the West, the government will lose its Islamic essence, what will negatively affect the development of Iran and put it under the control of Western elites. Such a position of him is also supported by the people holding the highest secular and clerical offices in the country.

In the article, based on personal memories, the author analyzes the activities of a famous scientist and teacher, doctor of historical sciences, professor, who worked for more than forty years at the Institute of History and Archives of the Russian State Humanitarian University - Nikolai Petrovich Eroshkin. His scientific, methodological and teaching activities are analyzed. His academic career allowed him to be deservedly considered the largest specialist in the history of Russian statehood in the 19th - early 20th centuries. His lecturing skills were characterized by the audience as one of the best in the Institute of History and Archives. He is the author of a textbook on the history of state institutions in pre-revolutionary Russia, the study book that withstood three lifetime and two posthumous editions, and has not lost its relevance to this day. Particular attention is paid to his organizational skills, which made it possible to create a specialized department, the core of which was the school of scholars of the history of state known not only in the USSR, and later in the Russian Federation, but also abroad. It exists to this day and consists of his students and their students. Under his leadership, hundreds of theses were written, about forty of his students defended their Ph.D. theses, seven of whom became doctors of science.

The article is a reference to the monograph by Y.N. Afanasyev’s “Dangerous Russia. The traditions of autocracy today”, which received devastating criticism from both the historical and the political science community. However, turning to the work 20 years after its release allows one to discard a number of limiting factors and look at the text in a new way, to understand what meanings the author of the monograph was trying to convey to his reader.

The article concludes that the predominant emotional nature of the work of Y.N. Afanasyev is based on the historical and biographical context of the work. Such approach to the analysis of the work of Yu.N. Afanas’ev was not previously presented in the scientific literature, however, without taking into account the personality of the author himself, the reader can consider completely different meanings.

The paper reveals a hidden meaning of the work related to the fact that Y.N. Afanasyev perceived the development of contemporary Russia as a looped movement in a circle. Such point of view is supported by the comments of Y.N. Afanasyev, as well as the structure of the monograph itself, which is the closest symbiosis of the history and politics of Russia.