Breakdown of monarchy in Russia brought about the fall of censorial restrictions Topics that until recently were under the ban became open for discussion and presentation on satirical publications, cinema and at theaters. How did the educated society take advantage of the freedom the society had got? First of all, the old regime in persons of Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra Fedorovna, and czar’s ministers were subject to the total mockery. Upon V.I.Lenin’s return to Petrograd, enhancement of the Bolsheviks’ positions and the July crisis the total critics was hailed on the Bolsheviks. Later on the critics was diverted on “Kornilovschina”. Finally A.F.Kerensky became the subject of derision. In result a part of intelligentsia moved from reprobation of certain individuals to the criticism of the people and Russia as a whole.

V.V.Shul'gin (1878−1976) is a politician and member of the Sate Dumas, a participant of the White movement, prominent publicist of the Russia community abroad. As early as prior the revolution Shul’gin paid attention to a great potential of the Ukrainian nationalism and warned about that. During the Civil war the topic acquired further development in Sul’gin’s articles that are relevant even today.

Peculiarities of the Soviet power making in Lithuania in pre-war years are reflected in documents held in the Russian State Archive of social and political history that are published now. It is demonstrated the key motives of the Soviet power activities wee as follows: 1) military and political considerations connected with expectancy of war; 2) radical transformation of the Lithuanian society social and economic structure that relied upon a complex balance of ideology, practical needs and real possibilities.

Assessments of the World War I as the war of an entirely new type are adduced in the article. Opinions of philosophers (Fr. Jünger, V.V.Rozanov, F.A.Stepun, politician L.D.Trotsky, psychiatrist I.A.Sikorsky, writer Pierre Drieu La Rochelle are presented. E.N.Trubetskoi and P.B.Struve demonstrated in their articles how the war aggravated national problems and engendered the «Ukrainian question». The conservative position expressed by Antony Khrapovistky, L.A.Tikhomirov and M.O.Men'shikov. L.B.Voitylovski and V.V.Korsak characterize the war as the direct participants of fighting.

It is the first publication of the full text of the letter sent by former Czar general K.L.Ghil'chevski to M.I.Kalinin. The reasons for writing the letter were cares about the pension. However the letter content is not confined to these cares. Ghil’chevski expounds his own biography emphasizing the fact that during the revolution of 1905 he refused to take part in punitive operations and during the Civil war he did not go to serve under A.I.Denikin. The ex-general analyzes the Soviet system uncompromisingly, sometimes on the verge of anti-Soviet appreciations. Ghil’chevski also emphasizes his commitment to patriotism. The letter caused a response and Ghil’chevski’s manuscript that summarized his battle experience during the World War I was published in the USSR as a single volume.

There are many testimonies that allow us to speak of emotional and deep perception of the French revolution events by several generations of Russian people. Values, system of images and symbols begot by the French revolution served as a «guide» of a kind to the future that dazzled and at the same time scared. Having put a clear-cut line between conservatives and radicals discussions on the optimal way of the West European norms adoption brought about formation of the «Russian idea» and contention that Russia needed a peculiar civilization. One line expressed itself in the Orthodox and monarchic ideal where the Enlightenment principles were connected with motives of national identity (formula «Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood» was replaced with triad «Orthodoxy, Autocracy, national authenticity»). The other line was an alloy of the European Socialism and ideals of communality that were focused on the ancient communal way of life. The intelligentsia associated the way to the bright future with results of its own activity. The Russian people just had to accept the results of choice made by the intelligentsia.

Grigori Nickolaevich Tovstoles (1887−1957) is a figure of the Russian emigrant community who is virtually unknown in the present day Russia. G. Tovstoles fought in the White army during the Civil war and he was one of the earliest participants of the Eurasian movement in emigration and a member of several Masonic lodges. In 1946 Tovstoles who lived at that time in France accepted the Soviet citizenship. In 1951 Tovstoles was detained by the USSR Ministry of State security in the territory of East Germany. The article for the first time introduces into the scientific turnover materials of investigation against Tovstoles (these materials are kept in the Russian Federation Federal Security Service' archive).

The round-table is dedicated to analysis of «The social thought of the Russians emigration» encyclopedia published 2009. This work is the first attempt to track development of the social thought in chronological limits of all waves of emigration from the mid-19th to the end of the 20th century.

The authors consider ideological origins, history of the Eurasian thought formation and development. A particular attention is paid to eminent representatives of this movement. Their opinions and fates are investigated not just on the basis of their works but also on the basis of documents from the Central archive of the RF Federal security service.

V.V.Shulgin (1878−1976) was a well-known political and public figure of pre-revolutionary Russia and the Russian emigration. Even though his books are reprinted again in Russia, much in destiny of the man is a secret for historians. In particular, that refers to materials of the judicial scrutiny file that are stored in the Russian Federation Federal Security Service Central archive. The fragment published here refers to Shulgin’s public and political activities in pre-revolutionary period and during the Civil war in Russia.

Leo Tikhomirov, a revolutionary and ideologue of «Narodnaya volya» who became a monarchist and editor of the «Moscovskie vedomosti», for more than 30 years kept a diary. Shortly before his death Tikhomirov passed his diaries over to the Rumyantsevs Museum for keeping it in custody. In recent years monarchists have republished Tikhomirov’s works and popularized his heritage actively. However Tikhomirov’s diary is actually unknown to general readers. In many ways that is due to the fact that thoughts and opinions contained in the diary not always complement what Tikhomirov declared in public. At the present time ROSSPEN publishers prepare publication of the full text of L.A.Tikhomirov's diary for 1915−1917. The commentaries will be attached to the text. Many of what was written by Tikhomirov 90 years ago can arouse interests of researchers who study history of Russia and of the Russian conservatism. Selection of fragments from the diary for 1917 (it is published for the first time) demonstrates the deep crisis of the author’s Weltanschauung and his disappointment in the principles he had professed upon his skip to the monarchist camp.

As the Presidential election are approaching the more vigorously various political forces appeal to the conservative values and traditions. Doing that every political force invests the content advantageous to impart into the concept of conservatism. In every specific moment and in every specific country this concept acquires a new meaning. There are no «pure» or «impure» conservatives for the very criteria of conservatism are different and a former revolutionary and an subversive may, upon coming to power, turn into an guard and adherent of a strong state. The Russian conservatism is unlike its European and American parallels. It is paradoxical and unique. It is imbued with the national traditions but it tried and still tries, though timidly, to provide answers to challenges of the time. Though, at the first glance, the contemporary political situation seems to be stable in fact it is fraught with unpredictable developments. In this respect the present day situation is very similar to the «conservative stabilization» Russia experienced during Alexander III reign. That conservative stabilization carried in itself three revolutions that overthrew the dynasty. That is why the most pure conservatism (i.e., the unsophisticated preservation of the status quo) has no chance in Russia. The same is true in respect of conservatism calling for return into the «bright yesterday». The current fashion for conservatism, on one hand, has already provoked discussions among historians, sociologists and political scientists (and the fact is positive in itself) but, on the other hand, it made a mess of the very notion of conservatism. All these developments make us to ponder about correlation between the historical experience of use of the conservative ideology in Russia and problems of the contemporary conservatism.

Just a few persons know of forecasts of Russia’s future that were done by the Russian conservatives long before collapse of autocracy. As the author demonstrates, Konstatin Leontieff whose works were many times republished and still is unread was by far more deep and far-sighted than his (and some our) contemporaries. Being aware of inevitability of the social revolution Leontieff tried to find in Socialism some conservative traits and to combine it with the monarchy with the framework of Orthodox religion. Leontieff proposed to settle the social issue by the existing authorities without changing the established social and economic order. Leontieff planned to devote a special work to Socialism but died before he could carry out his intention and his followers (one may wonder whether he had genuine followers) proved to be less original. Leo Tikhomirov was one of a very few of those who understood but did not accepted 'conservative Socialism' annunciated by Leontieff. «Patriarchal» defenders of autocracy depleted themselves in their struggle against the Socialist idea and did not understand a concealed typological affinity to Socialism. Affinity which, besides all other things, implied presence of the common enemy presented by liberalism and capitalism.