Omsk Province: History of Border Formation in 1919-1925

The article examines the issue of establishing the borders of the Omsk province with neighboring territories. The main directions of the delimitation processes with Siberian provinces and the Kirghiz (Kazakh) Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic are analyzed: the allocation of certain districts of the Tyumen province under the control of Omsk; the transfer of parts of the Altai and Tomsk provinces to the Omsk province; the transfer of several districts that were part of the Akmolinsk region to the Kirghiz (Kazakh) ASSR; and the dispute over the territorial affiliation of the Ishim and Pavlodar districts by Omsk. The complexity and ambiguity of territorial demarcation resulting from spontaneous changes in Russia’s administrative-territorial system during the revolutionary events of 1917, the Civil War, and the initial transformations of the Bolsheviks are demonstrated. It is revealed that the main issue was the formation of the southern border of the Omsk province with the Kirghiz (Kazakh) ASSR, which later became the state border between Russia and Kazakhstan. It is noted that the authorities of the Omsk province systematically defended territorial interests not only of their own province but also of Siberia as a whole, being key players in the region. The conclusion is drawn that thanks to the territorial shifts in southern Western Siberia, a foundation was laid for the formation of stable borders between Siberia and the Kirghiz (Kazakh) ASSR.

1. Amanzholova, D. A. (2021). Soviet nation-building: organizational practices and problems of federalism in the 1920s. Bulletin of the L. N. Gumilev Eurasian National University. Series: Historical Sciences. Philosophy. Religious studies, 1 (134): 22—35. DOI: 10.32523/2616-7255-2021-134-1-22-35. (In Russ.).

2. Andreev, N. A. (2005). Zoning of Tomsk province (1917—1925). In: The fate of the regional center in Russia (to the 400th anniversary of Tomsk). Tomsk: Tomsk University Press. 57—61. ISBN 5-7511-1923-1. (In Russ.).

3. Antonov, E. P. (2020). The formation of the Yakut ASSR and the first steps in state construction. North-Eastern Humanitarian Bulletin, 1 (30): 24—34. (In Russ.).

4. Fayzullin, S. A. (2022). Changes in the district network of the Tatar ASSR in the first half of the 1930s. Bulletin of Humanitarian Education, 3 (27): 51—59. DOI: 10.25730/VSU.2070.22.024. (In Russ.).

5. Gergilev, D. N. (2018). Features of administrative-territorial policy in the first years of Soviet power. Law and education, 5: 131—136. (In Russ.).

6. Kamenskikh, M. S. (2019). Historiography of national politics and national-state construction 1920—1940: regional aspect (experience of Perm Krai). Bulletin of the Perm Federal Research Center, 1: 72—78. DOI: 10.7242/2658-705X/2019.1.7. (In Russ.).

7. Karelin, E. G. (2010). “The Western region of Gosplan”: from the history of economic zoning of the country in the 1920s. Russian History, 2: 15—18. (In Russ.).

8. Karpenkova, T. V. (2013). National-state construction in Russia in the first years of Soviet power (1917—1918). Bulletin of the Catherine Institute, 1 (21): 80—86. (In Russ.).

9. Kazarin, V. N. (2005). Theoretical and practical aspects of administrative and territorial trans-formations in Eastern Siberia in the 20—30s of the twentieth century. Izvestiya Irkutsk State Academy of Economics, 3—4: 95—103. (In Russ.).

10. Korzhenevsky, K. B. (2020). Formation of Border Line between Kazakhstan and Siberia in 1920s — Early 1930s (The Case of Cherlaksky District). Nauchnyi dialog, 2: 369—383. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2020-2-369-383 (In Russ.).

11. Korzhenevsky, K. B. (2017). Formation of the northern border of the Kazakh autonomy in 1920—1921: the transition of Akmola and Semipalatinsk regions to the jurisdiction of Kazakhstan. In: Materials and research on the history of Russia, 1. Nizhnevartovsk: Choref Mikhail Mikhailovich. 18—21. (In Russ.).

12. Kyrchikov, M. S. (2017). Ural region (1917—1919): the role of regional associations of Soviets in reforming the regional administration of Russia. In: Ural in the fate of the Romanovs: Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference dedicated to the preparation for the 100th anniversary of the execution of the royal family, Yekaterinburg, October 25, 2017. Yekaterinburg: Soyuzregiontorg Limited Liability Company. 130—136. (In Russ.).

13. Palkhaeva, E. N. (2018). Features of the creation of the Buryat-Mongolian Soviet Socialist Republic. Bulletin of the Buryat State University. Humanitarian Studies of Inner Asia, 2: 11—23. DOI: 10.18101/2305-753X-2018-2-11-23. (In Russ.).

14. Panteleimonova, L. V. (2021). Administrative-territorial division in the RSFSR (1920—1930s). Historical search, 2 (4): 55—67. DOI: 10.47026/2712-9454-2021-2-4-55-67. (In Russ.).

15. Parchenko, N. A. (2020). Confrontation of the Sibrevkom and the Gosplan Commission on the issue of education of the Siberian Region. In: Trends in the development of legal science at the present stage: materials of the IV All-Russian Scientific Conference with International Participation, Kemerovo, October 18, 2019. Moscow: Prospect Limited Liability Company. 220—227. DOI: 10.31085/9785392337606-2020-824. (In Russ.).

16. Shavlokhova, E. S. (2012). The national question in the policy of the Bolsheviks: polemics around the problem of self-determination of nations. IMSIT Bulletin, 3—4 (51—52): 58—63. (In Russ.).

17. Shpagin, S. A. (2020). Documents of the State Archive of the Tomsk region as sources on the history of the zoning of Siberia. Siberian Archive, 1 (3): 214—221. (In Russ.).

18. Sorokun, P. V. (2016). New Siberian zoning and the creation of territorial districts in the 20s of the XX century. In: Topical issues of historical science: a collection of scientific papers. Kazan: Limited Liability Company “Buk”. 18—26. (In Russ.).