The article analyzes the main features of the Soviet system of public administration during the Great Patriotic War. The paper consistently examines the formation and functioning of the Headquarters of the High Command (since August 1941 — the Supreme High Command) and the State Defense Committee under the leadership of I.V. Stalin, the commission of the Bureau of the Council of People’s Commissars (BSNK) on current issues under the leadership of V.M. Molotov; the mobilization of party organs and the national economy, including the transition of the national economy to a military track; various aspects of the population mobilization, including for defense industry enterprises; the formation of the people’s militia, the conscription system, the development of the partisan movement under the leadership of the Central Headquarters of the partisan movement; the activities of the Evacuation Council in 1941, as well as the evacuation of 1942. The study separately analyzes the economic components of the state’s position during the war: national income, revenues and expenditures of the state budget, and state military loans; the volume of production of various branches of heavy and light industry, including military production, as well as agriculture; the number and working conditions of Soviet workers and employees, including women and teenagers; the contribution of the GULAG population and the Defense Fund; the card system for the distribution of food and industrial goods; management of the restoration of the national economy. Attention is paid to the state management of orphanages and schools, the system of measures to increase the birth rate, information policy, as well as policy in the field of culture and art, state symbols, management of science, relations with the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional religions of the country. As a result, it is concluded that the feat in the name of a common just cause was also the feat of those people who ensured the governance of the country.

Constructing the memory of the Great Patriotic War has become an urgent research problem due to the growing attempts to recode public consciousness in post-Soviet countries aimed at victimizing identity, especially of the younger generation, and rejecting the continuity of historical development, primarily in relation to the Soviet period, within the framework of the new nation-building. It is the period of the Great Patriotic War that is characterized by the most positive context in the historiography of the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and Kazakhstan (Central Asia). The aim of this study is to identify the main achievements, key features and analyze the main trends in the historiography of the former republics of Central Asia and Kazakhstan about the Great Patriotic War. The research is based on the principles of historicism, consistency, objectivity and is implemented by methods of classification, comparison, analysis and synthesis, problem-chronological, etc. As a result, the specifics of the historiography of the countries of Central Asia and Kazakhstan are established as a reflection of contradictions in the policy of nation-building and methodological approaches to the Soviet period of history, contradictions in the construction of historical memory of the Great Patriotic War. Thematic and problematic blocks are identified as well as country differences in the content of the source base, the study of economic problems, social and cultural development, military exploits of representatives of the titular peoples, the history of evacuation. The specifics of the contextualization of historiographical space and public consciousness are noted. The conclusion is made about the difficult state of historiography in the former republics of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, methodological equipment and discursive practices of research on the Great Patriotic War. It is noted that there is a need to develop cooperation between historians of Russia and post-Soviet countries aimed at providing a comprehensive and objective study of the entire Soviet period of joint history, preserving the legacy of intercultural solidarity and unity of the multinational Eurasian civilization.

One of the most important factors in the Soviet Union’s victory in the Great Patriotic War was the system of national economy management that prevailed at the time. Although economic planning in modern Russia is not directive, and the economy is mixed, the complex international situation and the status of a great power require a careful examination of the Soviet system of management, its strengths and weaknesses. Understanding how the Soviet leadership managed to prepare the country’s economy for the war, ensure a great victory, and facilitate post-war reconstruction can be valuable in the current stage of historical development. A study of archival materials and published sources has shown that the Stalinist ideology of economic management consisted of the following elements: 1) the basic principle of governance — a rigid administrative and command system under the undivided leadership of a monolithic party; 2) the main economic objectives — to create the economic base of socialism and maximize the country’s defense capability; 3) the order of key decision-making — the concentration of power in the hands of I.V. Stalin; 4) resources — the natural resources of the country, and the instruments — the Communist Party, the socialist system, and developed industry; 5) the mechanism of management — directive planning; 6) the image of the future — the construction of a communist society in the long term, and the strengthening of Soviet statehood and the fulfillment of urgent tasks (preparation for the war, ensuring the victory, and post-war reconstruction) in the short term.

The study explores state governance under strategic external challenges, focusing on the Soviet Union’s experience during the Great Patriotic War and contemporary international management practices. Its aim is to analyze the resources, tools, and mechanisms that ensure state resilience amid global threats and to evaluate their relevance to today’s geopolitical landscape. The scientific significance stems from the need to interpret historical governance models to devise modern security strategies, particularly amid the instability of the international system. The practical value lies in the potential application of findings to bolster Russia’s state policy in addressing emerging challenges. The methodology relies on a comparative historical analysis of the Soviet experience and an examination of crisis management cases in European countries. Findings indicate that the Soviet model exemplifies the effectiveness of mobilization governance in extreme conditions, driven by centralization and rapid decision-making. Conversely, contemporary European practices reveal a mix of successes and managerial shortcomings, primarily due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and poor coordination. The study contributes to international relations theory by highlighting the critical role of emergency bodies in crisis management and offers fresh interpretations of mobilization strategies tailored to modern contexts. Its practical significance lies in formulating recommendations to enhance Russia’s resilience to external threats, drawing on historical insights and an analysis of current international approaches. The research underscores the importance of adapting historical lessons to the complexities of a globalized world, providing a framework for strategic policy development.

Modern historical revisionism in the post-Soviet space has become a direct consequence of the geopolitical changes and the accompanying historical revisionism and revanchism which are typical to the unfriendly states of the collective West. As the economic and military-political balance in the world changed, and a new group of dynamically developing countries took the leading positions, the transformation of the Western-centric world order established after the end of the Cold War became inevitable. Against the background of growing geopolitical competition between Russia on the one hand and the United States and its allies in NATO and the European Union on the other the latter actively supported attempts to split the historical memory of the peoples of the former Soviet Union, the cementing element of which was the common Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This trend became more and more evident as NATO and the EU expanded eastward. An analysis of the causes and nature, as well as the tools of Western influence on historical politics in the post-Soviet space, proves a direct link between the memory wars and the international situation and the geopolitical goals of external players. All Western educational and scientific projects related to historical, cultural and other humanitarian issues are based in one way or another on the narratives of decommunization and the so-called decolonization of the post-Soviet space, ultimately demonizing the images of the USSR and modern Russia and the historical role of Russian civilization, including the period of the World War II. The rewriting of history through the promotion of historical falsifications plays into the hands of aggressive revanchist circles of unfriendly Western states seeking to maintain their dominance and sever the cultural and civilizational unity of the space of Russian civilization and its closest neighbours.

To mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory in the Great Patriotic War, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service has published a six-volume collection of documents from 1939 to 1945, many of which are being introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time. In total, over 800 sources have been published. About a quarter of the materials are special reports or informational reports from the NKVD-NKGB foreign intelligence service, addressed to the State Defense Committee. A significant portion of the documents were forwarded for use by the General Staff, the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, or the Sovinformburo. Drawing on previously published documents and extensive literature on the history of the USSR, international relations, military planning, and the work of the General Staff, this article presents a selection of materials from the multi-volume publication in a broad historical context, allowing for a fresh look at the role of foreign intelligence in providing information and analytical support for management decisions on foreign policy and security matters. Intelligence received the most valuable information from agents in London, which enabled the accomplishment of several important objectives. First, it ensured high-quality and timely information for the country’s leadership on the plans of Germany and its closest allies. The article provides an example of how intelligence agencies uncovered the essence of the Wehrmacht leadership’s plans for the summer of 1943 during Operation Citadel. Second, intelligence provided detailed information on the political situation in the Allied camp, primarily Great Britain. This created favourable conditions for negotiations not only with London but also with Washington on cooperation across a wide range of issues — from pressuring Finland and providing logistical and military assistance to opening the second front and discussing post-war developments, particularly in the Baltic Sea region. Finally, examples are given of intelligence work to inform the country’s leadership about the occupation regime and Nazi crimes against civilians and prisoners of war.

This article analyzes the intergenerational transformation of the historical memory of the Great Patriotic War in the context of cross-generational change. The relevance of the study is determined by fixation of the norm for protecting historical memory in the new version of Russian Constitution and the need to understand the mechanisms of its transmission in the context of the natural death of witnesses to the events, the continued socialization of millennials, the entry of a new generation of zoomers into adulthood, and the creation of a new digital communication environment. Based on a secondary analysis of data from VCIOM (Russian Center of the Public Opinion Research) surveys (2001–2025) and using the generational classification proposed by prof. Vadim Radaev, the dynamics of six generations of Russians’ perceptions of the war and Victory are examined. A faceted multidimensional classification is used to analyze open-ended questions, allowing us to identify the semantic aspects of historical memory. A shift is established from the communicative memory of older generations, based on personal experience and family histories, to the cultural memory of younger cohorts, primarily shaped institutionally. The study revealed a predominance of emotional associations among millennials and (not yet) unexplained rationalization of memory among the digital generation. High levels of awareness were found among the generations of stagnation and the reform generation. Paradoxical characteristics of younger millennials were discovered, demonstrating a critical potential for official memory policy. Despite a high consensus regarding the significance of Victory in society, hidden intergenerational differences in the interpretation of key aspects of the war were identified, requiring consideration when designing social processes.