In the work discussed in detail a book by M. K. Bazhanova "At the gates of British power", devoted to the Turkestan period of life A. Snesarev. The author of the article provided several contradictory theses, distorting the image of A. Snesarev, lower the level of his work and generally portraying a different, "exotic" image of this historical figure.
"I know that after death my grave will cause a bunch of garbage.
But the wind of History cruelly dispel her."
In may 2015, our country has celebrated the sacred anniversary – 70 years of Victory. A heavy burden I had to bear to our people, but he persevered and saved the world from the plague of fascism.
Western scientific and historical world entirely comes from the "historical accuracy" of fact - the war ended may 7, 1945, signing the instrument of surrender of Germany at 02:41 in Reims between the Wehrmacht and the allies. And ran the entire British (only English text was officially recognized). From the Soviet Union was only major General Susloparov I. A., the representative of the Supreme command under the command of the allies.
In fact, as has often happened in history (and today it can be clearly seen on the example of Syria), the West decided to enjoy the fruits of someone else's victory, and to ascribe to themselves the resounding victory, simultaneously trying to get additional geopolitical bonus. And only at the request of Stalin, was held the event already a more proper significance of the event. But history remained two victory day: may 8 – for the allies, and on may 9 – the USSR and Russia.
However, for millions of Soviet people on may 9 is the Holy day when it is customary to remember all who died for their country. And in this holiday never in all the seventy years never had separation on ethnic or religious grounds, by the person who made greater or lesser contributions to overall Victory.
That is a Great Victory in the great War today is in fact the one unwavering symbol of unity in grief and joy of our multinational people. The feat of the people and separate his sons are almost the only remaining basis for the Patriotic education of our youth.
However, the "historians" seek to contribute to "historical accuracy" of those events: the pioneers-heroes are not heroes, and the "Young guard" also we have yet to understand, captain Nikolay Gastello could not perform the feat, and 28 Panfilov – the image of Soviet propaganda.
And here arises a very important and poignant question: do we really need such a high "historical accuracy"? Missing or small, we risk to lose big? But, for example, the Americans did not bother about "historical accuracy" of the flight of their countrymen on the moon. And the victors of the Second world war, they believe it themselves, and all the major battles of the war took place exclusively in the Pacific.
It is for this reason – the extreme importance of some historical events in the identity of entire peoples – often about the "historical accuracy" serves as an effective tool to sway formed a mythical image. Here it is enough to remember "creativity" Suvorov-Rezun "Icebreaker", "Day-M", etc. it is Possible to remember and "works" V. Krivitsky, "I was Stalin's agent" or the famous "memoirs" V. Schellenberg, published after his death. Practice (and real authorship) such publications are known.
In all these books, of course, there is a unique factual information but presented it in such a way that the events described to the reader appear in a completely different light and he begins to wonder. And since I started to doubt, and to change its position is not far away. It is a well known and waste reception of propaganda. Works even where the original position seem unassailable. But the water, as they say, wears away the stone. Enough to start only to engender doubt...
In December 2015, the Russian scientific community celebrated the 150th anniversary of Andrei Evgenievich Snesarev - Russian scholar, orientalist, geopolitics, General staff officer.
Figure snesareva unique not only because it is an example of the patriot, who had to overcome the deep crisis of the Russian Troubles and remain faithful to their Homeland, and not the Tsar, the provisional government or the people's Commissars. And not to escape from their homeland to the West (which, in fact, conducted the whole Confusion), as did many of his classmates. Figure snesareva unique is the fact that this is one of the few images of the previous era, diligently continuing to the present day by the efforts of relatives. Snesarev is a historic bridge generations and our common history with all its UPS and downs, but ours, real and not invented somewhere in the quiet rooms and forcing us to kowtow to the "masters of the world". Thanks to the dedication of the members of his family, this Russian family, and today we can speak about the work of this man, unjustly forgotten in previous years.
Why today is so important legacy snesareva? His Oriental work? Because today, in the absence of other materials the youth studying the history and geopolitics of the works of Western scholars. Today geopolitics is for many Mackinder and Haushofer. Someone will add here of Kissinger and Brzezinski. But almost nobody will remember Florensa, Skobelev, Milutina, Kliuchevskoi and even more so – about Snesareva. And why remember Snesareva when one of his main concepts related to the negative impact of British policy on Russia. It is in the intrigues of London, Andrew E. have seen most of the problems of our country. And this is the beginning of the XX century! As fair was his evaluation! But, not everyone is inclined to evaluate his writings as visionary, as formed the basis of the Russian sight in modern geopolitics.
In recent years, a considerable amount of reprinted papers of A. Snesarev about it. Most of them journalistic and artistic, rigorous historical research among them, unfortunately, not so much. But more importantly – figure snesareva re-introduced in the scientific field of Oriental studies of the Russian and Russian geopolitics. Today there is a prize for young scientists named after A. Snesarev, enabling young people closer to touch the work of this Russian scientist, to feel the spirit and belief in the unique role of Russia in world history.
In the year of the 150th anniversary of many of the subtleties and traits are erased, there is only a single image, partly mythological, and contains the plaque decades. But the fact that this image as a total evaluation of all science A. Snesarev today is extremely relevant and useful – undoubtedly, this is the significance of the figure snesareva for Russian history and Russian geopolitics.
It is the rise of interest in the figure snesareva makes more attentive to the works that are emerging today and who strive to bring something new to this 150-year-old creative way of A. Snesarev.
Thus, the number of anniversary events, a special place occupies the international scientific conference "Military Orientalism. On the 150th anniversary of A. Snesarev (1(13).12.1865-04.12.1937)", which was held in Saint-Petersburg, Institute of Oriental manuscripts, RAS, 14 and 15 December 2015.
There is no doubt that one of the key events of the conference was the presentation of the book M. K. Bazhanova "At the gates of the English power".
The author of the book is positioned as a scientific biography of the outstanding representative of Russian school of Oriental studies of A. Snesarev.
The author is a major in the reserve of the Armed forces of the USSR, doctor of historical Sciences, member of the Royal society for the study of East, now living in Glasgow, UK, well-known for their previous military-historical works.
Presented in St.-Petersburg the book is written strictly, with a large number of unique citations of the archives (and both Russian and British). And this is perhaps the first such edition of the works snesareva. In its preparation was actively involved and the relatives of your father, although final preparation of the book and took only three months – the author tropica to submit work to the 150-year anniversary. In fact, the rush did not allow the author to fulfill one of the promises is to agree on a final text of the book with A. A. Komissarova (granddaughter of A. Snesarev), which might help to remove some emerging issues.
As the author himself writes, "...in the literature recently, the topic of Snesareva several declined to the "highest order": geopolitics, national security, "lessons for the future", etc. Snesareva began to attribute ideas which he never expressed, and concepts, the development of which was engaged. In parallel with this came the development and the process of mifotvorchestva – snesareva began to advance on the role of strategic visionary and geopolitical clairvoyant...".
Here I entirely agree with the author (the text of the book it will be quite rare) – this is the image snesareva, at least in part mythical (150 years allow to speak about easy mythologizing) are for young students and cadets of educational institutions that only stand on the thorny path of science, and are not particularly important those nuances and subtleties that are so carefully, relying on sources, points out in his book Michael Bazhenov.
When we awarded the diplomas of the prize..E.Snesareva, we often hear from young laureates that it was the work of A. Snesarev has opened up a huge reservoir of scientific knowledge about the East, about the role and place of Russia in world geopolitics and much more (for them, at this moment, believe me, it does not matter 7 or 11 foreign languages know A. Snesarev).
As noted above, the book by M. Bazhanova unique in the total number and quality of cited sources, however, her reading does not leave the feeling of "Jesuit" style of presentation – it seems to be all correct and well written, but in the end the image of A. Snesarev not so clean and clear, and already there are "historical thinness" and the nuances of his relationship to the people to military service, to their own creativity. And at the end we are not the great Russian orientalist and geopolitician, Russian army officer, seer of the secret threats to the security of our country, and mediocre "Junior research fellow" modern research Institute that compiles the research papers, manipulated historical facts, and envious of more successful colleagues.
In this regard, I, as the reader, to whom, and turned the book, a question arises – why so much detail? It is well known that, for example, A. S. Pushkin, having fun, wrote obscene poems. And how this has affected the image of the great Russian poet?
However, in order not to be unfounded, we will try relying on the text of the book to show the portrait of A. Snesarev that has developed it (stress it) I have. It is possible that other readers will have different opinion about the book and its main character.
Refer only to a few most striking features of the portrait of A. Snesarev described in the book using archival sources, is his attitude to colleagues of his service, and his scientific work during the period of service in Turkestan (very short period – only four years).
So, describing the results of the trip snesareva in India (the first significant event in his career of a scientist), the author indicates that it would be wrong to assume that a trip to India revealed to him a kind Providence and the Supreme truth. In the author's opinion, in some matters he has failed to comprehend the true state of Affairs, such as questions about the role of the British administration in the development of India "believed that the British just "pump out the lifeblood of the country"), about the degree of hatred of the local population to the British colonial system (exaggerated antagonism), religious and caste divide in Indian society (underestimated this factor). A trip to India and had the effect that Snesarev in a number of issues, especially the military, is not quite correctly assess the combat potential of the Indo-British army, its strengths and weaknesses, strategic stability (at the time) British military system as a whole. It is quite forgivable for a young graduate of the Academy (the path the Academy of the General staff), but less excusable for the future scientist, because the attention to details and minor facts, and fidelity assessments – the key to success in the scientific field.
Speaking about Snesareva as an officer of the Russian army, M. Bazhenov comes from the traditional assessment of belonging to the "officer caste" - if not passed all stages of "initiation", it is a real officer you never will be. Thus, in particular, they noted that "...the peculiarity of the psychological perception Snesareva service was the fact that he joined the Corporation officers of the General staff, that is, "a citizen", that is, not having the classic way in the formation of the officer cadet corps, military school, Academy. The question really stood wider education, they talked about psychological and spiritual transformations that are Snesareva failed to fully pass. For this reason, among the officers Snesarev was seen as-if not quite his, not fully military...".
Yes, there is a perception among officers, but following the author's allegations, which he cites below, in no way correspond with the "psychological motives". The author, in particular, indicates that "...we should pay attention to free snesareva respect to the confidentiality of information in secret and departmental publications of the district headquarters. As can be seen from his correspondence with his sister, he would often send her their works, which were intended only to a narrow circle of persons. A printed work snesareva belonged to the category of secret, contained confidential information, intelligence, guidance on the mobilization readiness of the troops of the district, etc....". In these words the actual charges snesareva in the disclosure of classified information, since we can't be sure that sister sent the manuscript did not get into anyone's hands except the hands of the sisters.
Complementing the image snesareva as an officer, the author notes that the issue of appointing snesareva commander of the Pamir detachment, to date there is only one version (and snesareva) – voluntary agreement (which is quite understandable, given his interest in the Pamirs and the results of reconnaissance). However, the author does not preclude other things – after presenting the relevant note to the leadership of the district snesareva have had no chance to be appointed chief of the detachment. Here it is necessary to experience the difference – be a volunteer in a hard case, and "to condemn" yourself at least a year of hard work, or simply to obey orders of the commander, without the ability to opt out.
An interesting feature snesareva as an officer – he is completely unrestrained and unauthorized several times during the period of his service in Turkestan, his fault has not just provoked an international conflict during his reconnaissance, which included unauthorized crossings in the neighboring territory. On one such occasion, the author notes, "...what did Snesarev, openly playing with fire, now to tell difficult. Maybe it was an act of bravado, a demonstration of disrespect to the Chinese...".
Another episode involving snesareva as commander of the Pamir detachment, in terms of, as the author notes, the lack of reliable information about events on the border, reminiscent of an unnecessary show of force, empty bravado, giving her a well-known scale (from rumour). Bravado and rumors about the failed (or exaggerated) victories – it is rather the image of the "Lieutenant Rzhevsky" of ribald jokes...
Actually, about the human qualities of A. Snesarev say his relationship with co-workers and this is described in detail in the book. It is important to note that among them were such significant historical figures as L. G. Kornilov. It is important that Laurel G. was godson of children snesareva, which is a very important evidence of their relationship, as Snesarev was a devout man, but, according to M. Bazhanova, this issue is very thin. So, the author indicates that "...during the period of tenure of the Supreme commander, ready to fight with the Germans at the front and in the rear of the Bolsheviks, Kornilov gathers adherents, makes a bet on the most reliable of them. From the totality of the available information we can conclude that the number of such people Snesarev was not...".
In Tashkent Snesarev at one time lived with the officer Grigorov. In that period Snesarev in correspondence calls him "my comrade." In the later period Snesarev maintained friendly relations with Grigorov, but in these relations by snesareva more contemplation, some external, third-party observer of the life of the person with whom his youth was pushed and brought the fate.
Particularly, according to the author, it is evident in the period of the First world war, when Grigorov appeared in German captivity. The author also shows the warm relationship of father-in-law snesareva to A. M. Grigorova – he corresponds with him, send a parcel, under the mediation of the red cross, etc., but Snesarev remain indifferent to the fate of his friend.
In letters describing the fate of one of his friend, I. K. Serebrennikov, Snesarev notes that "... the war he has developed, apparently, very badly, and he is far behind...". The author emphasizes that given the events of the Russian time of Troubles fell down in the dust of past achievements, ranks and awards, division Snesareva its participants to "successfully" and "failed" to end the war looks a bit strange. This is a very soft word – "strange" - behind it lies a very clear assessment snesareva.
A similar attitude snesareva according to the author and to M. V. Grulev. It is known that Mikhail Vladimirovich did a lot for Snesarev during his service in Turkestan. Especially all that relates to his activities as author and editor in the "Collection of information concerning the countries neighboring Turkestan military district". However, as pointed out by M. Bazhenov, "...Oriental work Grulev was overlooked snesareva never received his proper evaluation. In the Imperial period Snesarev hardly used works Hruleva...". In those moments when the works Hruleva still mentioned Snesareva, these estimates are of a condescending nature. So, Snesarev in particular mentioned in his works labor Hruleva "Some geographical and statistical data related to the area of the Amu-Darya between Chardjui and pitt-Hissar" and describes it as "...purely a compilation, and in many respects is not perfect.".
Evaluation of this behavior snesareva the author is very hard – in his opinion, the statement is categorically and does not correspond to the content of the work. T. E. Snesarev again failed as a scientist and specialist-regional studies specialist.
Even the sensational (this is mentioned in the book) the work of M. V. Grulev – "Rivalry of Russia and England in Central Asia", snesareva not prompted to respond at least a small review. The importance of the work was appreciated by the British and immediately made her a full translation (for the very reason that England is not made by the main threat for Russia). Grulev closely followed scientific activities snesareva, was interested in his publications. Known for his book review snesareva "India as the main factor in the Central Asian question." In the review, in particular, stated: "... Dear author quite faithfully developed some economic and statistical data on India...".
But then Michael Bazhenov makes a very ambiguous statement: "...cannot be ruled out that the question of personal sympathies for snesareva, with its steady anti-Semitic views, not the least importance was of Jewish origin Hruleva...". May be today in terms of universal combat xenophobia that matters, but a hundred years ago the situation was opposite – there was a certain state of national politics, for centuries formed the attitude of all the peoples of the Empire, and it is well known to historians.
You can also add the following. Michael Bazhanov States its position based on archival documents, however, it is possible to explain only by them? We should not forget that Snesarev was a military intelligence officer and I M Bashanova should be known that not everyone in the intelligence entrusted to paper. So, for example, you can question the unselfish courtesy Guruleva in the estimates of works snesareva. First, most of the "courtesy" accounts for the year 1906 – a time when in full swing was secret contacts at the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian agreement. It is clear that reasoned position snesareva was extremely harmful to the London in these negotiations and great efforts have been made so that this threat be eliminated. This explains the fact that Grulev "...closely followed scientific activities snesareva...". The work of Hruleva largely staged in London. Well, in the completion of the portrait: after retiring in 1912, Grulev went to nice, and not left in "cursed by God" of Russia.
Bazhanov also indicates that assessing the work of British Lieutenant Colonel Charles IATA "Khorosan and Seistan", Snesarev told the review another author's chiding IATA because as an Englishman he could not see the "noble influence" of Russia in Asia. According to M. Bazhanova, book IATA, serious and respectable, was of great interest for Russian intelligence in Turkestan. She deserved a much more careful and thoughtful approach. In particular, referred to the assessment of its Kornilov, that the book IATA is a gift, which he could only dream of. Kornilov praised the work IATA and used it in the preparation of the report on the reconnaissance Seistan.
But in the reviews of the book Alexander Gardner's "Memories" Snesarev pointed out: "the Memoirs of Gardner, published six years ago, but as we know, has not drawn the attention of the Russian press, even though such deserve". Michael Kazbekovich believes that it is difficult to accept. In his opinion, the book is not only full of inaccuracies, but direct and full of fictions and fantasies about the adventures of the author. The book was never taken seriously among people knowledgeable in the Central Asian question.
Again, the review snesareva. This time anonymous the book "Challenges Russia in Central Asia." This review is M. Bazhanov generally compares with the skit, although the level of source, in his opinion, deserve in-depth and comprehensive study material.
But snesareva review of the book J. D. Golovina "Amirah: notes of a Russian traveler" has also caused the surprise of the author, but quite another matter. He believes that the book suddenly and unfairly drew attention snesareva, "...to give this little book a very extensive review...".
What is important, according to M. Bazhenov, from the write-up was like beating baby so exaggerated were the claims of snesareva to the author. From outside could seem that the reviewer has put all his intellectual power to the wrong object and the wrong genre of easy narrative with academic study. Michael Bazhanov emphasizes that the review snesareva were perceived by many as unfair, in support of the author was written a number of works.
In 1902 Snesarev participated in the editing and reporting work of Colonel A. A. Polozov – "North-West frontier of India." Michael Bazhanov draws attention to the condescending tone in the evaluation of the work of Polozova "brochure". Characteristics of the work as a "brochure" with a small number of pages, as it has enhanced the scope and significance of his own reporting work in India "North Indian theatre" (450 pages only in the first part, prepared at the time).
Summarizing some the result of the activities snesareva as a scientist, Mikhail Baskhanov indicates that reviews, as a literary genre, could Snesareva not always successfully, despite excellent knowledge of topic, knowledge of a wide range of sources and personal experience. In this regard, it can be assumed that such assessments of creativity (know, knew sources, but wrote nonsense) may indicate a certain "untidiness" and "servility" in the preparation of materials from snesareva.
In General, M. Bazhanov notes that Snesarev during his service in Turkestan rarely bestowed one of his co-workers rave reviews on their published works. To their works, though he treated critically, but consider them in comparison with the work of other officers and staff of the district improved in scientific terms. Ie quite a typical braggart, and not a senior officer of the General staff.
Of special note is the question about knowledge of foreign languages. The issue is not so fundamental in the assessment of creativity A. Snesarev, however, also has not remained aloof from the watchful eye of M. Bazhanova. In particular, he notes that "... despite the existence of opportunities [the author writes about the great possibilities for the study of languages in Tashkent] Snesarev not attempted to use them to study Oriental languages. At the same time, knowledge of the Urdu language, no doubt, could help him in the study of Afghanistan and India...".
Well, quite personal (if not to take into account the attempt by the British to build snesareva "honey trap" from Countess Leiter). The author writes that "...in him [snesareva] attitude to women was more rational than sensual, and it's hard to say, did he really feeling up to meeting with Evgenia Zaitseva, his one and true love...". Assessment of this judgment I entirely leave to the relatives of Andrew Paton.
Finish snesareva, Michael Bazhanov writes that "...the note "On Amirah" Snesarev has positioned itself as the absolute authority in the Pamir question, he emphatically demonstrates his erudition, sometimes even excessively with regard to assigned task...".
Also commending the work of snesareva "India as the main factor in the Central Asian question. The opinion of the natives of India against the British and their control", the author notes the following: "...based on of course the axiomatic idea of the importance of India for economic, political and military power of Britain, the author makes a number of findings, quite disparate historical realities. There is a clear fit of historical material and of certain facts under a self-idea – by all means to convince the reader that India is a basis of the power of great Britain...".
The work indicates that some of the theses presented in the book snesareva, is not free from biased approach, which distorts the historical reality.
But that, in my opinion, is simply intolerable, is the following statement of the author: "...in terms of sources, Snesarev clearly manipulated the facts...". So, the author notes that the serious meaning of Digby and Naoroji offset by using out of context ideas and provisions, while the work is broader and more serious of the format, which was trying to put them Snesarev. But the fourth Chapter of the work, according to Mr. Bashanova, in form and content generally similar to the narrative tale and historical anecdote.
Whatever works snesareva – they have it and they he passed the formation as a scientist. Maybe he was wrong, but it is impossible today to stand with him to condemn him for a decision is a decision, it was consistent with his beliefs and views of the time. Many of snisarevsky findings were confirmed time and relevant even today. About Snesareva remember for 150 years, but will remember whether the labour Bazhanova at least five years?
Extremely unpleasant and hard to estimate is the following statement by Michael Bashanova: "...in the beginning of 1911, the newspaper "Voice of truth" has suspended its activities, and its actual owner General V. N. Zaitsev was forced to begin bankruptcy proceedings and the payment of considerable debts. This unpleasant situation for some time, strained relations between Zaitsev and Snesareva. Rabbits, as you know, was involved in a project with a newspaper and therefore suffered greater financial loss, at the initiative snesareva...". Ie dragged father into the project, and at the stage of difficulties quit... well, absolutely it is somehow not in the officer...
Why the author did not understand the real reasons for the bankruptcy of the newspaper? Who and how destroyed it is so independent in some political judgment? And why hasn't he said that Andrei was involved in the repayment of debt by all available means and that there was no conflict, and was a difficult family situation (according to the statements of the relatives of A. Snesarev)?
Summing up his review of the book of Michael Bashanova, I want to reiterate the following. It is possible that many of the facts and had seats at that time and in that life, in that historical context. And today they may be (I) interesting to a narrow circle of historians engaged in the analysis of personal letters.
Michael Bolloyev, by his own admission, working on the book, managed to obtain a number of unique documents and also to access some "relics" of the British archives. But max, what we find in the book is an entry in the entry book of the arrival in Britain of Mrs. Leiter, is an indirect sign of the continuation of their love affair. But does it really matter?
I suppose if, for example, working in the Royal archives, the author has made a reasoned view about the UK's position on the "Asian issue" (because the trip snesareva was only a return visit to India - a British officer were the first to travel across Russian Central Asia) or might shed light on the role of the officers of the British naval forces during the battle of Tsushima, and in General on the role and place of Britain in the Russo-Japanese war and the true driving forces of the agreement of 1907, then it would be work and would be valued quite differently. Well, or dug up the documents about the arrangements of the British elite with Hess that Hitler could attack the USSR until 1944 he was afraid of war on two fronts is not worth it.
Let me just say one thing - such an unflattering assessment of an officer's life snesareva, some of his works and personal qualities that are present in the book, will not affect the attitude towards the role and place of this uncommon personality in national history. I believe that we will be able to see and read the opinions of other Orientalists in the present work.
 Baskhanov M. K. "At the gates of the British power": A. E. Snesarev in Turkestan, 1899-1904. – SPb.:
Nestor-Istoriya, 2015. – 328 p., Il.
 ibid., p. 6
 ibid., p. 41.
 ibid, page 52.
 ibid., p. 169.
 ibid., p. 172.
 ibid., p. 115.
 ibid., p. 176.
 ibid., p. 78.
 ibid., p. 81.
 ibid., p. 82.
 ibid., p. 83.
 ibid., p. 83.
 ibid., p. 84.
 ibid., p. 86.
 ibid., p. 98.
 ibid., p. 83.
 ibid., p. 99.
 ibid., p. 120.
 ibid., p. 124.
 ibid., p. 124.
 ibid., p. 125.
 ibid., p. 152.
 ibid., p. 120.
 ibid., p. 152.
 ibid., p. 71.
 ibid., p. 72.
 ibid., p. 132.
 ibid., p. 159.
 ibid., p. 162.
 Here it makes sense to refer to Michael Bashanova dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of candidate of historical Sciences "the Policy of England and Russia in relation to the state of Yakub-Bek in East Turkestan (60-70-ies of XIX century)", 1991. In particular, the abstract is a paragraph "...will be extremely valuable to determine the nature, form and type of public education Yakub-Bek are the works of V. I. Lenin "State and revolution", "the state" etc. When defining the role and place of religion and the armed forces in Jatisari paramount thoughts of Lenin about the vested interest of the exploiting classes "to protect its dominance in the two social functions: the function of the hangman and the function of the priest". The impact of the Institute priests for life Kashgar society and politics Yakub-Bek was immense. Loyalty to the methodological provisions of V. I. Lenin that "the clergy has always been involved in politics," was especially evident on the example of the last years of the existence of Hattisar, when the policy of the clergy was significantly undermined the strength of the power of Yakub-Bek...".
 Baskhanov M. K. "At the gates of the British power": A. E. Snesarev in Turkestan, 1899-1904. – SPb.:
Nestor-Istoriya, 2015. – 328 C., Il., p. 164.
 ibid, page 164.
 ibid., p. 169.
Tags: Russia , national idea