The phenomenon of “Russian Strikebreaking”, which clearly manifested itself in the second half of the 1920s and 1930s, is an important component of Shanghai’s revolutionary history. Its beginnings date back to the time of 30 May 1925 Movement. After the beginning of the general strike of students, workers and merchants, White Russians found their “niche” in counter-revolutionary activities: they were recruited in the security forces of the International Settlement due to the efforts of former Consul General V.F. Grosse and the Committee for the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Russians. Those, who were mostly part of the “voluntary” army for the protection of the Settlement, were involved in guarding and patrolling. They were also employed in posting propaganda leaflets in the Chinese possessions of Shanghai in a guerrilla manner. The ordinary emigrants, who wanted to get food and a roof over their heads, forgot about solidarity with Chinese workers and took jobs offered by the local authorities in tobacco and shipping companies, China Import & Export Lumber Co., ports, post offices and other socially important enterprises and institutions. The situation at the power plant was a particularly striking example. White Russian workers who were given jobs at the power plant were an effective tool against the strike in the foreign hands. Eventually after the strike ended, Chinese workers were dismissed en masse from the Department of Electricity due to Russian strikebreakers. However, the employment of Russian workers was only a temporary means for the foreigners and the Municipality of International Settlement. Most of the workers who got jobs in private companies, ports and other places were sacked as soon as the strike ended. Russian workers remained in their jobs only at the power plant. The municipal government eventually kept Russians there in order to retain counter-revolutionary forces to fight strikes in the future.

The article analyses the diplomatic ef orts of Republican Spain, which, under the auspices of the prominent public and political figure Fernando de los Rios (1879-1949), were aimed at obtaining American aid during the Civil War (1936-1939). The author explores every aspect of De los Rios’ activities as the ambassador of Republican Spain in Washington in 1936-1939: efforts aimed at lifting the US embargo on arms sales to Spain; raising the awareness of the US leadership and the American public about the Italian-German intervention; waging active campaign in support of Republican Spain through public lectures, speeches and cultural diplomacy in order to foster solidarity with the cause of the Republic in North American public opinion. As a rule, studying the Spanish Civil War and the position of the United States Russian historians pay more attention to the drafting of American legislation on neutrality. Less attention is paid to the analysis of the policy of Republican Spain towards the United States during this period. The present article is the first in Russian historiography to use documents from the personal archive of Ambassador Fernando de los Ríos, namely, the records of the Spanish Embassy in Washington in 1936-1939 (deposited in Madrid). Some of the results of the diplomacy of Republican Spain in the United States in these years can be assessed as positive, while the others were partially or completely unsuccessful. Fernando de los Ríos’ active campaign in support of the Republic greatly contributed to the shaping of Spain’s image as a victim of fascist aggression and made a certain contribution to the criticism of the policy of neutrality. However, despite all the efforts of the ambassador and the sympathy for the cause of the Republic shared by President Franklin Roosevelt and the American public, the embargo on the arms supplies to Spain remained in force until April 1, 1939, as the United States remained f rmly committed to neutrality.

The plague epidemic in Manchuria and the Chinese Eastern Railway right-of-way in 1910–1911 has for many years been a subject of study by scholars in various fields. At the same time, the views of Chinese researchers on the causes of the spread and course of the epidemic, and on the participation of Chinese medics in its localization, were poorly presented in the Russian literature. Public opinion, which was reflected in the Russian press and sessions of the State Duma, is also not fully covered in studies. In order to fill the historiographic gap, the authors examine medical reports of the early twentieth century, documents of the Russian State Historical Archive, stenographic reports of the State Duma, periodicals and memoirs of the Chinese physician, “fighter against plague”, Wu Lienteh. They conclude that the plague epidemic in 1910–1911, which took the lives of more than 100,000 people in northeast China and Chinese Eastern Railway area, was not unexpected for Russian medical experts, who had recorded local outbreaks of plague before. However, what occurred in the autumn of 1910 took the administration at all levels, both in Russia and China, by surprise. The absence of a system of anti-plague organizational measures and trained medical personnel resulted in the rapid spread of plague from Russian Transbaikalia to the southern provinces of China. Calls from a Siberian group of deputies to the State Duma to fight against the plague all together were met with little enthusiasm. The Russian press also tried to focus on this urgent problem. Thousands of deaths in Manchuria were announced regularly on the pages of newspapers at the turn of 1910–1911. It was due to the tremendous effort on the part of medical workers and substantial financial resources, mainly Russian, that the epidemic was finally brought to a halt. The plague did not penetrate into Russian territory.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the development of a robust postal and telegraph system, alongside the construction of railways, was a crucial indicator of social modernization. The efficient operation of the Chinese Eastern Railway and its connecting Kaidalovskaya line depended heavily on the organization of communication along the railway. Establishing comprehensive postal and telegraphic communication was also vital for the local population. This study aims to examine the formation of the postal and telegraphic system along the Kaidalovskaya line of the Transbaikal Railway. Due to changes in the administrative affiliation of the Transbaikal region throughout the 20th century, information on this topic is dispersed across various central and regional archives of Russia. These materials are mainly housed in the Russian State Historical Archive, the State Archive of the Republic of Buryatia, the State Archive of the Irkutsk Region, and the State Archive of Zabaykalsky Krai. The authors concluded that creating the postal and telegraph system along the Kaidalovskaya line was a complex and prolonged process. Before the construction of railways, there was no post and telegraph in the administrative centre of the Aginsky Steppe Duma. Although the first post offi ce was opened in Chindant during the construction of the Kaidalovskaya line, the establishment of a fully functional postal and telegraph system in the region was delayed until World War I, primarily due to the insufficient government funding. Despite the authorities’ interest in moder nizing the communication system for the local population and repeated requests from selfgovernment bodies, including the Aginsky Steppe Duma and later the Aginsky Indigenous Volost Administration, postal and telegraph offices along the Kaidalovskaya line were primarily established when and where there was an urgent need for military presence or railway construction.