The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Applications and tasks to a lecture & #34; Russian emigration of 1920 30th & #34; Originators: S.I. Golotik, S.V. Karpenko, S.V. Mironenko



PRILOZHENIYA And TASKS TO the LECTURE

"The RUSSIAN EMIGRATION of 1920 - the 30th"

The documents placed as the annex to the lecture "The Russian Emigration of 1920 — 30-hkh." are stored in the State archive of the Russian Federation. Read them and, using the text of a lecture and also suggested sources and researches, answer questions and perform tasks.

1

The RUSSIAN ENVOY IN BERNA I. N. EFREMOVA

On March 3, 1921, Bern

The rights of the Russian citizens in Switzerland were guaranteed mainly by the Convention on settlement and the trade concluded between Russia and Switzerland on December 14/26, 1872.

This convention is denounced by the Russian government on November 2, 1917 by transfer to chargês d'affaires to A.M. On of a corresponding note to the federal Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Gustav Ador, and it is not necessary to lean on it; it is impossible and demand its full execution. Nevertheless to me complaints to refusal of the Swiss judicial authorities in protection of the rights of the Russian citizens did not arrive. Also cases of refusal or evasion of the administrative and police authorities of protection of personal and property rights of the Russian citizens are unknown to me.

But I know a number of cases, one may say, the general system of restrictions of the right of entrance and stay in Switzerland of the Russian citizens which is a consequence of non-recognition of full force of the Russian passports. The Swiss authorities base such denial that the Russian government which was recognized by Switzerland actually does not exist any more, and there is no such Russian government which would be recognized by Switzerland. From here the Swiss authorities remove that there are also no such bodies of the Russian power which would have the indisputable right to make acts of the government power, and therefore documents issued by these authorities, passports and certificates are not valid; the persons supplied with them have to be recognized not having lawful residence permits.

It belongs not only to civil, but also to diplomatic passports where those were given. These

the "passportless" foreigners who are not protected besides the Convention of 1872, fall under the law granting the right to send them from the canton and even from Switzerland or only to suffer their stay under a condition of pledge or the guarantee.

Denunciation of the Convention of 1872 does quite precarious a position of the Russian consuls in Switzerland, but the Swiss authorities, denying legality of continuation of activity of consuls, referred not to denunciation of the Convention, and to not existence in Russia of the government recognized by Switzerland. However, owing to my negotiations with the federal authorities, the department (ministry) of justice and police published the circular in which it was definitely recommended to local authorities to belong as it is possible more kindly to the russkopoddanny, showing documents signed by me. The requirement of pledges and guarantees nevertheless proceeds at what this measure is explained by local authorities desire to protect communes and cantons from the expenses on them able a mouth on keeping of poor Russians.

The convention concerning inheritance was not between Russia and Switzerland, and protection of hereditary property is still under authority the cantonal authorities on the basis of various local cantonal laws.

Along with these police stesneniye I have to note also the positive relation of the Swiss authorities, mainly federal, to a difficult situation of Russians. So, the federal government undertook to give out in 1919 to cantons and communes which will assume keeping of poor Russians, in the form of surcharge to their expenses, on five francs on the person in day. This resolution found application almost only in the Vaadsky canton. In other places some mentally sick Russians were accepted on public contents.

After my instructions to the federal government on helpless position of a large number of Russians, it is so wide in former time spending the means in Switzerland, the federal government changed the resolution and charged to the Swiss Red Cross to attend to keeping of patients and decrepit Russian citizens, having assigned 250,000 francs on this business. Besides, the federal government charged in the spring 192 0 years of Association of mutual aid of Swisses and protection of the Swiss interests in Russia to attend to the maintenance of some number of Russians, having assigned 60,000 francs on this business. At last, I borrowed from the same Association which does not have own means, and receiving them from the federal government and with the permission given it by this government, according to an order of the government of Kolchak, 300,000 francs for maintenance of Russians in Switzerland.

I cannot but point also that in Geneva, Lausanne, Bev and Montreux purely Swiss or mixed charities provide to Russians the apartment and a table and render other grants and also that Swisses, as in Romance, so

partly and in Allemansky Switzerland, take part in research of means for the monetary and labor assistance to Russians.

HECTARE of the Russian Federation. F.5680. Op.1. 79. L. 6 - 7.

Questions and tasks:

A. In what the main reason of "non-recognition of full force of the Russian passports" by the authorities of Switzerland consisted?

B. How you consider for what reasons the Swiss authorities protected the personal and property rights of the former Russian citizens?

B. From what sources the rendering financial support to the Russian emigrants in Switzerland was financed?

What G.V of degree, in your opinion, this help was based on the beginnings of public charity and in what - it was dictated by the government?

2

MINUTES of the CONVERSATION of the BISHOP SERAFIM LUBENSKY I of REPRESENTATIVES of the RUSSIAN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS IN BULGARIA WITH the RUSSIAN DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE IN BULGARIA

A.M. PETRYAEV

On December 16, 1922, Sofia Sov. confidentially

On December 16, 1922 for clarification of the circumstances which caused A.M. Petryaev's decision to stop activity of the Russian diplomatic mission and to leave borders of Bulgaria and also definition of conditions at which observance the Russian diplomatic mission led by A.M. Petryaev could continue the activity in Bulgaria, the managing director of the Russian orthodox communities in Bulgaria bishop Serafim Lubensky and named below representatives of the Russian public organizations were to the building of the Russian mission in Sofia to the Russian diplomatic representative A.M. Petryaev: D.A. Abramovich, kN. Lobanov-Rostovsky, V.S. Nikulin, R.G. Mollov, A.I. Pilts, P.N. Sokovnin, N.P.

Screws, A.A. Euler and A.E. Yanishevsky.

The bishop Serafim on behalf of the gathered representatives of public organizations addressed A.M. Petryaev with the indication of the purpose of visit and reported about that alarm which captured refugee circles in connection with news of departure of the Russian mission. The lord gave to Petryaev a request of the Russian colony to take all necessary measures for activity preservation

of diplomatic mission, at least and having renounced personal vanity. The lord pointed to that stalemate in which they will appear 4 0,000 Russian refugees in Bulgaria, having lost protection and representation of the interests before the Bulgarian government and foreigners.

A.M. Petryaev said that the issue is resolved irrevocably and that not in its opportunities to give nowadays to business other turn. If representatives of public organizations addressed it earlier, immediately after a conversation in the MFA since Kisimov, maybe, and it was possible to make any changes to the made decisions. Now late to speak about it. A.M. Petryaev considers it necessary to emphasize that though formally business and is presented in such form that as though the initiative of departure proceeds from it, Petryaev, but in essence the Bulgarian government does not wish to suffer more in Bulgaria the Russian diplomatic mission and it gradually prepared for a long time the decision for departure of a mission. A.M. Petryaev's conversation with the representative of the MFA Mr. Kisimov absolutely clearly opened a position of the Bulgarian government since Mr. Kisimov directly said to Petryaev that it had an assignment from the government to talk over with it about the termination of activity of the Russian mission, and expressed even satisfaction that A.M. Petryaev the arrival to the ministry saved it, Kisimov, from a painful duty to be in the Russian mission for performance of orders of the government. The official government statement which appeared after that with a denial of that circumstance that the Bulgarian government suggested the Russian mission to leave led by Petryaev Bulgaria, and verbal statements of Mr. Kisimov to many persons with denial of that conversation which he had with A.M. Petryaev, should be considered false. It is one of standard practices of artful east policy in which the large role is played by provocation. In any case, after the statements made to it by Kisimov and considering all complex of the created relations, A.M. Petryaev came to absolutely certain conclusion that he cannot wait for official proposal about leaving of borders of Bulgaria since all the same such conditions for activity which will only compromise Diplomatic mission will be created to it and will not improve matters of the Russian refugees in Bulgaria at all.

A.I. Pilts specified that departure of the Russian mission from Bulgaria is the first case around the world in post-war time. This circumstance has enormous basic value for the Russian foreign statehood and creates very heavy precedent for diplomatic missions in other countries. Before this question the interests of numerous Russian refugees in Bulgaria which, of course, after departure of a mission will fall into the most difficult situation recede into the background. At the created situation when the Bulgarian government officially denies that it suggested the Russian mission to leave Bulgaria, for the mass of the Russian refugees

motives by which A.M. Petryaev in the decision to stop activity of the Russian mission in Bulgaria is guided are absolutely unclear. Voices of people, perhaps, inexperienced in diplomacy are distributed that the Russian diplomatic mission would have to do the duty up to the end up to receiving official proposal of the Bulgarian government about the termination of the activity and even up to violence on eviction from Bulgaria of the Russian mission if the Bulgarian government would decide on it. There are no bases to assume that the Bulgarian government would take such extreme measures and that it would decide even to offer to leave at the created international situation of the Russian mission in an official order borders of Bulgaria. In any case, if further stay in Sofia personally of A.M. Petryaev is impossible, it is obviously necessary to continue activity of the Mission at least as a part of minor officials. The fact that after A.M. Petryaev's explanation since Kisimov the MFA published the diplomatic list for 1923 in which ranks of the Russian diplomatic mission led by Petryaev appear, demonstrates that the Bulgarian government does not wish to go on an open gap and that steps in the direction of settling of the conflict can achieve the objective.

A.M. Petryaev, objecting A.I. Peltz, asked to believe that personally he is present no interest to leave the position, to lose the apartment and contents and in the winter with small children to go to uncertainty. Time it came to such unshakable decision, means it had quite good and thorough reasons. It has absolutely exact data that in relation to the Russian Embassy in case it does not leave, large provocative actions are prepared. Are possible as it was already last summer, cases of tossing of weapon, various literature and other most various forms of hostile performances for to discredit a mission. Against actions such he is powerless to fight and cannot oppose them anything. He once again repeats that the official statement of the Bulgarian government which was published in newspapers is the act provocative. Its inclusion, Petryaev, and other employees of the Russian mission in a diplomatic leaf for 1923 after explanations which it had in the MFA, is no more as a sneer with the purpose to discredit it, Petryaeva, in the opinion of his foreign colleagues, but nevertheless and now he says the same as said earlier that it will remain in Sofia if the Bulgarian government states, at least informally, in an oral form, that it does not object to continuation of activity of the Russian mission. As for continuation of activity of a mission in its case, Petryaev, departure, in the MFA were negative to it absolutely, having said that Mr. Kulev for protection of the building and archives can be left only dragoman to a mission. From the party A.M. Petryaev claims that there are no bases to assume that Bulgarian

the government expressed readiness to keep further activity of the Russian mission.

On questions of some of attendees of how protection of the Russian interests and passport business after departure of the Russian mission will be organized, A.M. Petryaev explained that during the whole last time he conducts incessant negotiations with representatives of the Bulgarian government for the most favorable permission of these questions. The government rejected the project of the structure of the mixed Russian-Bulgarian committee on the Russian affairs and, apparently, inclines to the decision to submit all cases of Russians to administrative office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in accordance with general practice with affairs of the Bulgarian citizens. The question of passports, apparently, will be resolved quite favorably. The government will undertake issue of passports to Russians in the form developed by the League of Nations. A.M. Petryaev considers necessary that the Russian refugees organized own committee, absolutely apolitical, is exclusive only for protection of the material and legal interests. He recommends to representatives of the Russian organizations to visit the deputy minister-chairman, the Minister of Internal Affairs Mr. Daskalov to submit it the petitions and reasons on the fate of the Russian refugees in Bulgaria. According to the statement of the Ministry of Internal Affairs the church at the building of embassy will remain in free use of Russians, there will be also in the apartments persons living now in a wing of embassy. The main building will be sealed and transferred to storage to a dragoman to Mr. Kulev.

After exchange of opinions the gathered representatives recognized as untimely to send such delegation to the minister Daskalov since such visit kind of determines a question that the issue of departure is resolved irrevocably.

On it the conversation ended.

HECTARE of the Russian Federation. F.5923. Op.1. 28. L.204 - 209.

Questions and tasks:

A. On the example of Bulgaria show what influence on position of the Russian institutions, the organizations and emigrants was rendered by an internal political situation in the country of accommodation.

B. What role in settlement of the status of the Russian emigrants was played by "nansenovsky passports"?

B. What, in your opinion, the place was taken by diplomatic missions in Foreign Russia?

3

FROM the LETTER

REPRESENTATIVE of the ALL-RUSSIAN TERRITORIAL UNION IN BULGARIA

A.A. Euler

To the CHAIRMAN of the MEETING of the RUSSIAN AMBASSADORS IN PARIS

M.N. GIRSU

On February 5, 1923, Paris

Sir Mikhail Nikolaevich,

In addition to my personal report and written petitions and materials of the Russian church and the Russian public organizations transferred to you in Bulgaria I have honor to present the following explanations on the issue of use for needs of the Russian refugees in Bulgaria of the sums of 11 million leva (approximately) making the rest of the credit which was earlier under the authority of A.M. Petryaev and being nowadays in Sofia at the disposal of the Bulgarian government. In view of absolutely authentic data on the consent of the Bulgarian government to withdraw the ban from the specified sum and to return money to the initial manager of the credit, i.e. To a meeting of ambassadors in Paris under an indispensable, however, condition to spend this money only for needs of the Russian refugees in Bulgaria, the representatives of the Russian church and the Russian public organizations in Bulgaria recognized as necessary to petition before the Meeting of ambassadors for a holiday of the marked sum for satisfaction of needs of the Russian refugees in Bulgaria and authorized me to support personally marked petition. My power signed by the bishop Serafim and representatives of the Russian organizations was handed by me to you.

According to those beginnings which were put by A.M. Petryaev in the basis of expenditure of the specified credit the Russian organizations in Bulgaria believe necessary to turn this credit only only for needs of so-called "category refugees", and besides for only such needs which cannot be satisfied with usual expenses of the separate organizations. We consider the category refugees needing special care on condition of lack of own means of livelihood: disabled people, patients, children, students, women with small children and aged.

1. Disabled people in Bulgaria, according to the Union of disabled people, up to 2,500 people. Some groups are in rather tolerable material conditions since are provided with the English government, the League of Nations or armies are listed, receiving a ration. The disabled people evacuated to Bulgaria in 192 0 g and who arrived later from other countries in a single order receive only 150 leva a month now, and members of their families are not provided with a ration. The smallest size of cost of monthly livelihood on condition of a boiler allowance should be considered from 350 - 450 l. in a month depending on the area.
2. The children consisting in the Russian educational institutions, according to the Union of the Cities, 1 8 54 persons are registered. Behind absence at the disposal of the Union of the Cities of necessary means, a large number of children is left behind the walls of school. Among the Russian refugees in Bulgaria the diseases caused by malnutrition and the general hygienic living conditions are extremely developed. 7 0 children of the Russian kindergarten in Sofia were examined by the doctor of a clinic In [serossiysky] Z [emsky] From [oyuz], and among the examined children 42 skrofulezny children are revealed.
3. Students in Bulgaria there are about 1,100 people. From them at the Sofia university 130 people are enlisted.

Medical and Agronomical faculties accept only 10 Russian students in a year. 60 students receive for the account of professor Uitimor free lunches in the dining room of the Red Cross, and 40 people at the expense of the same professor Uitimor are exempted from payment for the doctrine. In Sofia there is a hostel equipped with the Territorial Union on 60 people where students in 160 leva receive a bed with a mattress for a monthly payment, a pillow, linen and tea (without bread and sugar). It limits cares of the Russian students in Bulgaria. Without having an opportunity to study at the Sofia university, students for the lack of means cannot go for continuation of education and to other countries.

4. TB patients up to 1 2 00 people. This figure cannot apply for accuracy in view of impossibility to catch for accounting of all patients. Quantitatively and qualitatively tuberculosis progresses in the menacing sizes. For fight against tuberculosis several dozen beds in the Bulgarian majestic hospitals are at the disposal of the Red Cross, there is in Sofia a small out-patient clinic - guardianship of the Territorial Union - and in the village the Principality of sanatorium of the Territorial Union on 44 beds.
5. The number of the women burdened with small children and who are not able therefore to have earnings in accuracy is not known. The management of the military contingents keeps account only of families of ranks of army, giving a ration to disabled members of families.
6. Aged of both sexes, not capable on the age to work, are not considered. There is only one shelter for several dozen old men opened in the of Kyustendem by the French-Bulgarian Committee.

Irrespective of the categories of refugees marked above in Bulgaria, persons in need in the help, especially there is a question of maintenance in Bulgaria the Russian orthodox churches serving nowadays as concentration of religious and cultural-national life of the Russian colonies. I transferred to you two notes about needs of church of the managing director of the Russian orthodox communities in Bulgaria bishop Serafim.

Turning to a question of an order of a razassignovaniye of money for various needs of the categories of refugees stated above in Bulgaria, I consider a debt to note the unanimous opinion of all Russian organizations (expressed in the special resolution) that the Committee on affairs which again arose on an initiative of the Bulgarian government

the Russian refugees the only task has to have only legal protection of the Russian refugees and Russians of the organizations and should not include work in the areas which are already served by the separate Russian organizations in the competence. Thus, I formulate petitions of church and public organizations in Bulgaria in the following look:

1. To turn the credit rest consisting earlier on hand A.M. Petryaeva and which is expressed in the sum about 11 million leva for needs of the categories of the Russian refugees stated above and the Russian of church in Bulgaria.
2. To consider the marked credit additional to the main budget allocations, the released monthly separate organizations in Bulgaria.
3. For a razassignovaniye of money for separate needs of refugees and church within the general monthly need established by the Meeting of ambassadors to form in Sofia Soveshchaniye as a part of the diplomatic representative, the representative of churches, the representative of Management of the military contingents and representatives of the Red Cross, the Territorial and City Unions.
4. To begin a holiday of money since March 1st & lt;...>

HECTARE of the Russian Federation. F.5923. Op.1. 28. L.171 - 175.

4

FROM the PROTOCOL

MEETINGS of REPRESENTATIVES of the RUSSIAN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS

In BULGARIA

1 March, 1923, Sofia

After opening of a meeting A.A. Euler gave the report on performance of the assignment assigned to it by the Meeting of representatives of the Russian public organizations in Sofia on January 17 in 192 3 g concerning excitement before the Meeting of the Russian ambassadors in Paris of petitions. about use of 11 million belonging to the Meeting of ambassadors and being nowadays under authority of the Bulgarian government, for needs of some especially needing categories of the Russian refugees in Bulgaria.

& lt;...>

2. Passing to an assignment about use of the rest of the credit belonging to the Meeting of ambassadors and being under authority of the Bulgarian government for needs of the most needing categories of the Russian refugees in Bulgaria, A.A. Euler reported the conversations on this question with the chairman Soveshchaniya of ambassadors in Paris M.N. Girs and the same Soveshchaniya's members. A.A. Euler announced the copy of his letter addressed to M.N. Girs concerning this question. M.N. Girs specified that Mr. Gulkevich in Lausanne

conducts negotiations with the representative of the Bulgarian delegation of

Costa Todorov who notified by the letter that the Bulgarian government intends to turn the specified money only only for needs of the Russian refugees. Then M.N. Girs said that in view of the data on inclusion in the structure of Committee on affairs of the Russian refugees of the representative Soveshchaniya of ambassadors of S.G. Bogoyavlensky which are available for him he considers the interests of safety of the Russian fund adequately protected; as for return to the Meeting of ambassadors of the marked credit, the negotiations which are conducted in this direction in Lausanne are that only way of the return receiving money which is available at its order now. In view of the fact that M.N. Girs told A.A. Euler that his arrival to Paris with instructions from a meeting of representatives of the Russian public organizations in Bulgaria caused concern among some Russian circles in Sofia and in Belgrade in this connection M.N. Girs received even the letter from the general E.K. Miller, A.A. Euler considered it necessary to stop on the way back from Paris to Belgrade in order that by personal negotiations to explain to the Main command true intentions of the Russian public organizations in Bulgaria. In a conversation with the commander-in-chief [the General P.N. Wrangel. - Editor's note], general Miller and other faces of the Military of management

A.A. Euler explained all incorrectness and tendentiousness of the data received by them that as if the Russian public organizations in Bulgaria covet to distribute among themselves the remains of the credit stated above and specified that the only purpose of its petitions at the request of the organizations was to achieve the fastest reclamation of the marked money the Meeting of ambassadors from the Bulgarian government and establishment of such order of the order and their razassignovaniye on the place which would guarantee in connection with the aggravated political atmosphere in Bulgaria possibilities of quiet work on assistance to the most needing categories of the Russian refugees. To generals Wrangel and Miller A.A. Euler transferred copies of his letter addressed to M.N. Girs.

The prince I.N. Lobanov-Rostovsky reported that the Committee on affairs of the Russian refugees received from the Bulgarian government as allocation 1 million leva for assistance to Russians. After that the prof. Bazanov and he as members of the marked Committee, received letters from the manager of a financial part at the Commander-in-chief S.N. Ilyin from which appears that the main command believes that the Russian members of the committee take part in expenditure of money from the 11th million fund. In view of the fact that the Chairman of the Committee Mr. Trifon Kunev made the formal statement that 1 million assigned by the Bulgarian government has no relation to 11-million fund of Soveshchaniya ambassadors, kN. Lobanov-Rostovsky answered S.N. Ilyin in this sense, having specified that the Committee on affairs of the Russian refugees would hesitate to accept allocation from the marked fund without permission and

consent of his owner, i.e. Soveshchaniya Russian ambassadors in Paris.

Having heard the reports and messages stated above and after exchange of views, Soveshchaniye representatives of the Russian public organizations in Sofia decided:.3. to recognize as necessary the further intercourses with the Main command on the issue of use for needs of the Russian refugees of 11-million fund, considering especially need of urgent reclamation from the Bulgarian government in Soveshchaniya's order ambassadors of the money deposited in the Bulgarian National Bank; 4. to ask A.A. Euler to put M.N. Girs and the general Wrangel in popularity about the taken place resolutions of representatives of the Russian public organizations in Sofia and to conduct with them written negotiations further about it.

HECTARE of the Russian Federation. F.5923. Op.1. 28. L.176 - 178.

Questions and tasks to documents 3 and 4:

A. What, in your opinion, was the level of the organization of assistance to the Russian emigrants in Bulgaria? This help was how effective? Prove your reasons.

B. From what sources the rendering financial support to the Russian emigrants in Bulgaria was financed?

B. In what, in your opinion, the reasons of "concern" of command of the Russian army concerning use of 11 million leva transferred by the Meeting of the Russian ambassadors to the government of Bulgaria consisted?

G. Kakaya can draw a conclusion on the relations (and their reasons) between public organizations of the Russian emigrants and command of the Russian army?

D. What role and owing to what reasons played in Foreign Russia Soveshchaniye the Russian ambassadors in Paris led by M.N. Girs?

5

REFERENCE

About POSITION of the RUSSIAN REFUGEES IN CONSTANTINOPLE, PREPARED by the REPRESENTATIVE of the ALL-RUSSIAN TERRITORIAL UNION IN CONSTANTINOPLE A.L. GLAZOV FOR M.N. GIRS

2 April, 1926 Confidentially

Total number of the Russian refugees in Turkey does not exceed nowadays 4,000 - 5,000 people. Not less than 90% of this number live in Constantinople, and other 10% are disseminated through various

to areas Anatoly, and recently these refugees living in the province gradually lose the places and earnings and are sent on residence to Constantinople.

As well as in other places of resettlement, the Russian refugees in Constantinople in overwhelming number earn means of livelihood by wage and day labor. There is almost no more or less large enterprise left organized by Russians and giving constant earnings to the compatriots in Constantinople. One of characteristics of the Russian refugee colony in Constantinople is quite considerable number of disabled people and an unearned element: consecutive evacuations, at first to the Balkan countries, then to the United States and in the last two years to France, considerably extorted youth and in general people, vigorous and capable to physical work, from Constantinople. So far the help to such disabled element which settled in Constantinople appears the famous American philanthropists Mitchell and Regls.

Till summer of the past, 1925, the Russian refugees were not constrained in the right of application of the work and knowledge in the most various industries of local economic life. The only legal restriction which was strictly observed by Turks consisted in refusal by the gone abroad white Russian in the return entry visas to Turkey. Very reluctantly were given by Turks and the entry visa in Anatoly, but at the known patronage and efforts these permissions could be got. Generally was to the Russian refugees till last summer in Turkey rather quietly and well, special unemployment among them was not observed and there were already some prospects concerning the device of considerable number of the Russian experts on a number of the large state and municipal enterprises.

But here since fall of 192 5 g in connection with negotiations on the Mosul question, unsuccessful for Turkey [A dispute between Turkey and Great Britain concerning accessory Mosul and the Mosul vilayet, till 1918 being a part of Turkey, and then transferred to structure of Iraq. - The editor's note], the policy of the Turkish government for foreigners, and in t [ohm] of the h [Isla] and the Russian refugees, sharply changes and accepts definitely aggressive character. Based on vaguely edited Article 4 of the Lozansky contract, the Turkish government under the guise of protection of interests of Turks against the competition of foreign work begins to issue consistently a number of the decrees depriving of foreign citizens of the right to be engaged in the known crafts and crafts and also to consist serving in a number of the enterprises, not only state and public, but also private. First of all and most painfully it affected the Russian refugees deprived of both consular, and other authoritative protection and therefore provided entirely to themselves. Though by various petitions, and at times and bribes to the police authorities, it was also possible

in certain cases and to defer application of the mentioned decrees, but nevertheless situation was created intolerable and unemployment among refugees sharply increased. The attempts made by representatives of the Russian organizations to pass in Angora [Ankara is the capital of Turkey. - An editor's note] and on the place to find out a question of granting the known privileges to the Russian refugees, came to an end in failure since it was not succeeded to receive such permission to a trip to Angora. Situation was complicated also by the fact that, since December, 1925, receipt in local office of the International Labour Office of contracts for works to France absolutely stopped.

Thus, along with the become complicated political situation and the growing unemployment the Constantinople refugee Russian colony lost the only place where it could direct the element, healthy and capable to physical work. All this forced representatives of the Russian organizations in Constantinople to address the delegate of MBT Mr. Charpentier who is again appointed to the Balkans with a persistent request to hurry [c] arrival to Constantinople and by direct negotiations with authoritative representatives of the Turkish government to find out position of the Russian refugees and to try to achieve for them the known privileges which would still allow refugees to work and not to be a burden on neither the most Turkish government, nor local community.

In the first of March of this year Charpentier arrived in Constantinople. In a number of meetings with representatives of the Russian organizations of Mr. Charpentier it was in detail informed of the provision of the Russian question in Turkey and it was handed the memorandum comprising all those minimum wishes which would be desirable for achieving from the Turkish government for settlement of the Russian refugee question. Left after this in Angora of Mr. Charpentier had a number of meetings with the Minister of Foreign Affairs replacing the away on vacation chairman of the board of ministers of Izmet-pashu and with the Minister of Internal Affairs there. The trip and negotiations with Turks of Mr. Charpentier did not yield any favorable results. Under undoubted influence of Bolsheviks the Turkish ruling circles declared the absolutely negative attitude towards white Russians. All attempts of Mr. Charpentier to strive for cancellation of the decrees forbidding work of foreigners concerning the Russian refugees terminated in failure. The question of extension which is brought up by Mr. Charpentier for refugees of the right of a political asylum after August of 192 7 g was sharply rejected too. Mr. Charpentier did not hide from representatives of the Russian organizations that he considers the mood created concerning the Russian refugees in Angora menacing and hopeless and advises all who only can and do not wish to risk, to leave borders of Turkey. In return Mr. Charpentier promised to inform on results of the trip to Angora the International Labour Office and to ask the last to send to Constantinople perhaps bigger number of contract visas to France.

About in what oppressed situation is now

the Russian colony in Constantinople, it is not necessary to speak - it is clear itself; it is necessary therefore to take the most urgent measures to possible strengthening of evacuation of Russians from Constantinople. It is necessary to carry out it especially rather that for the present, till fall of the current year, the American philanthropists Mitchell and Regls continue work and office of the International Labour Office, both. The last render the monetary assistance to all evacuated Russians that in the presence of visas considerably facilitates evacuation. However activity of these unselfish friends of the Russian colony terminates in October of this year and if the period remaining to this term is not used, then evacuation after October of this year will already be considerably complicated and complicated by lack of any financial aid.

Finishing with it the note, I consider a debt to note those concrete measures which need to be undertaken urgently concerning the Russian refugee colony in Turkey not to put it in the near future before a perfect stalemate.

1. To take all possible measures in the International Labour Office to strive for from the Turkish government cancellation or mitigation concerning the Russian refugees of all those restrictive orders concerning work application which are established for foreigners recently.
2. To achieve a prisylka for Russians to Constantinople of perhaps bigger number of contract visas to France (suitable for physical works both at factories, and on

agricultural works of an element in Constantinople it is possible to consider not less than 1,000 people). All necessary information about these persons is available in local office of the International Labour Office - Constantinopole, Pera, Hamal-Bachi, rue Serkis No. 11.

Nikolay Andreevich Lemtyugov manages office.

3. To draw the most persistent attention of the foreign governments to the stalemate created for the Russian refugees in Constantinople and to petition before these governments for granting, out of rules, possible number of visas to those from refugees who on the age and the state of health are not capable to hard physical activity, but which subsidiary work and handicraft crafts could prosoderzhat themselves in places of resettlement of more powerful Russian refugee colonies.

HECTARE of the Russian Federation. F.R-5680. Op.1. 70. L.39-41.

6

LETTER

HEADS OF THE DELEGATION for RUSSIANS

Kokkonen Jorma
Other scientific works: