English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The article uses example of the Nadezhdinsk case to show political daily life of the local and district Party-Soviet nomenklatura, which carried out various activities, performed administrative functions, interacted with higher authorities, and defended local group interests. The emergence of the Nadezhdinsk case was provoked by N. Kharitonov, correspondent of “Ural’skiy rabochiy” newspaper. According to the results of his business trip to Nadezhdinsk, he submitted two letters and a memo to the newspaper’s editorial office, in which he described situation in the Nadezhdinsk party organization. The article analyzes the results of verification of Kharitonov’s materials by district commission, Moscow commission and regional control commission. It is demonstrated that the Nadezhdinsky case developed against the background of difficult and tense relations between the Tagil district committee and the Ural regional committee of the VKP(b). This circumstance had a significant impact on the findings of the district commission. The commission rejected the correspondent’s main charges, accused him of slander, political blackmail and links with trotskyists. The Tagil district committee supported the commission, defending its leader, I. F. Maslennikov, and accusing the regional Party committee of scheming against the district Party organization. Both the regional administration and the Moscow inspectors did not agree with the conclusions of the district commission, recognizing them as biased and prejudiced. In the course of their own inquiry, they encountered opposition to their work from the district leadership and found that the district commission used unworthy methods of verification. Because of the conflict situation around this investigation, local and district administrators involved in the Nadezhdinsk case were dismissed, mainly due to their misconduct during the investigation.

THE 1928–1929 NADEZHDINSK CASE: CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE TAGIL DISTRICT PARTY COMMITTEE AND THE URAL REGIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE VKP(b)