Who cultivated Russian North? Objection to the Norwegian author

ИНГВЕ АСТРУП

НОРВЕЖСКИЕ ЛЕСОПРОМЫШЛЕННИКИ -ПИОНЕРЫ ОСВОЕНИЯ РУССКОГО БЕЛОМОРЬЯ В 1880-1930 ГОДАХ

NORSK SKOGMUSEUM

The book by Ingve Astrup "Norwegian timber merchants - are the pioneers of the Russian White Sea in the years of 1880-1930" was published in Norway in 2011 as a collection № 4 of the Norwegian Forest Museum in Elverum. [1]

It seems that this is a small colorful edition with unpretentious scientific aids and popular style of the presentation and it will be not very interesting to the prepaired reader. During the meeting with him appeared the feeling that you are dealing with a typical ideological product. The title of the book gives it a blatant sensationalism and a certain value, given that it came out in Russian and, therefore, faces the broad and unshod Russian audience. Only this fact made the author of these lines to take up writing reviews.

The author Ingve Astrup is an economist, former Director of the Norwegian Forest Museum El-verum, and a descendant of the family roots of Norwegian timber merchant Frederick Pryuttsa, well-known business in the Arkhangelsk region of the early twentieth century.

Basis of his book was a historical overview on the role of the Norwegian capital in the development of the forest production in the Russian North. It implies that in the nineteenth century, "Norway has become a leading exporter of wood products to Europe," creating their own sawmills in Sweden and Finland. At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Norwegians "have been actively working in Russia," in the White Sea. Further, the author shows the activity of a number of Norwegian companies (and among them his grandfather F. Pryuttsa). Talks about the hardships of the Russian revolution, which placed Norwegian breeders to the brink of collapse. Describes a revival of business activity during the NEP and its collapse at the end of 1920.

As noted by I. Astrup, the fate of F. Pryuttsa was linked to politics. He became an active participant in the creation of the fascist party "National Unity" in Norway in 1933, because, according to the author, was concerned about the communist threat and believed that "Norway is expected to achieve the economic and political influence in the north - western part of Russia. "I. Astrup did not hesitate to write that in the autumn of 1918, his grandfather wanted "the German occupation of Russian northern territories." From 1942 until his death in February 1945, F. Pryutts served as finance minister in Quisling's puppet government, created to support the occupying regime of Hitler. Just a few months, he has not lived up to the collapse of the Third Reich and the execution of Kvisling Quisling.

Actually, this is the factual outline of the book. If we talk about the subtext of the content, they generally fall within the framework of copyright regret the breakup of "huge projects in the East", leaving the Norwegian Timber from Russia.

Probably, we can understand the feelings of the child of the Norwegian forestry magnate. But how reveals the content the name of the book? The main contradiction is that the "pioneers" of the development of Russian White Sea by announcing foreigners. This confusion is even able to awaken the half-serious comparison of Norwegians with Spaniards penetrated into the wilds of the wild natives. Chronological framework included in the title of the book, however, explained that the author understands the "development" of the relatively short historical period, from the 1880s to the 1930s, when the White Sea and the very large area of Murmansk and to Pechora were actually not too bad settled and populated the Russian population. In the history of the Russian North had already entered the glorious pages associated with the construction of the medieval towns and castles, the birth of naval shipbuilding.

However, in the content of the book the author tries to clarify his position, noting that "when in the sixteenth century, Sweden and Norway have already had at their disposal water vertical saws, the work with wood in Arkhangelsk carried an ax and a handsaw," but only "mill and vertical saw ... were the forerunners of the Industrial Revolution.»Apparently, with the advent of "steam sawmills" I. Astrup and start their own "era of the development", thus overestimating the role of Norway in the history of the Russian North.

The substitution of the concepts is visible to the naked eye. Even if we consider the Norwegians related to the appearance of sawmill production in the Russian north, can not be elevated to the rank of "the pioneers ". Firstly, because, as acknowledged by the author himself (and this is another contradiction) of 40 lumber mills working in the Arkhangelsk region in 1913, only 20 belonged to foreigners, among whom were businessmen, not only in Norway, but also from England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the Baltic countries. Half of the plants - they were Russian companies. Secondly, the concept of "development" (not translated, by the way, just for a single European language) means a much more complex and multifaceted phenomenon than the creation of industrial production.

If you use the logic I. Astrup, the "pioneers of the development" of the Northern Norway we can name Russian Pomors coast-dwellers, whose trading activity in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, recognized among the Norwegians themselves, according to the historian Einar Niemi, "The decisive factor in the creation of living conditions and opportunities along major Norwegian section of the North coast "[3, p. 15]. But should we imitate the example of the book under review? Norwegian participation in the creation of timber production in the Russian North actually looks not the beginning of the process of development, and the relatively small and, given the well-known result, still isolated episode in the millennial history of the development of the Russian White Sea.

If the author wanted to be objective, he could tell you about the problems that arose between the owners of the Norwegian timber companies and the Russian workers and forced breeders eventually leave Russia. Is the involvement of the Norwegian to the process of the development of the Russian White Sea is written in the petition of the workers' meetings aimed to the factory administration Pryutts September 25, 1917? It wsa writen: "We, the workers, very angry of the call actions of the entrepreneurs, and even if they do not go to meet our legal requirements, all rise up as one armed uprising and take it up to the revolutionary way of the organizing production" [2, p. 81].

But instead of the searching for the truth I. Astrup actively manipulates with the reader's trust. Thus, under the old photos of Arkhangelsk on the 24th page of the book is given the author's postscript: "The city was the administrative center of the province, which is home to many foreigners come from Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, but most of them were Baltic Germans." This comment clearly aims to make the uninitiated reader, who may or may not know that 94.6% of the residents of Arkhangelsk on the 1897 census as their mother tongue Russian [4, p. 104-111].

Obvious defects of this book suggest the general reflections on the Russian-Norwegian cooperation in the field of history. I remember in 1992 when there was a new issue of the Norwegian journal "Ottar" dedicated the partnership between Russia and Norway. This edition left no doubt about the scientific priority of creativity Norwegian researchers studying Russia. But those days have sunk into oblivion.

Against the background of the struggle that was in the international community over the Arctic, notably the emergence of new trends in the historiography of Norwegians and in the dialogue Norwegian researchers with Russian colleagues. In place of the ideas of the north ("Barents") the identity of the 1990s has now become appear opposite the desire to search asymmetry, and underscores the special status of the Norwegian polar latitudes .

I want to believe that these trends in the science are provisional. Traditions of good neighborliness and mutual respect must sooner or later prevail in the overall effort to find the historical truth.