Abstract: The article is devoted to characterizing the role and contribution of regional branches of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIK) in activities related to industrial heritage sites. The relevance is due to the urgent need to attract the attention of the general public to the problem of the destruction of the remaining monuments of the industrial past. To conduct the research, both archival documents and published sources were used, including the regulatory framework for security activities. The scientific novelty of the article is due to the lack of research aimed at fully studying the contribution made by the regional branches of VOOPIK to the process of identifying the industrial cultural heritage. The practical value of the study lies in the attraction of the public attention to the problem of participation of all actors, including public organizations, in the conservation of industrial heritage sites. To conduct this study, archival materials were used: documentation and statistical materials, as well as legislative and regulatory acts, periodicals. The author comes to the conclusion that identifying potential monuments is the first priority step in their conservation efforts. This activity was in line with state policy in the 1960-1980s. In the Sverdlovsk region, there was a targeted identification of industrial heritage sites with the aim of studying them, registering them with the state institutions and further preserving them. Regional branches of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments made a great contribution to this activity. The author found that by the end of the 1980s, more than 40 objects had been identified in the Sverdlovsk region, 37 of which were registered with the state institutions' help by 1989, including 18 as monuments of republican significance.

Abstract: The object of the study is the Udmurt Republican branch of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments. The purpose of the article is to assess the degree of participation of the Society in the preservation and popularization of monuments of domestic industrial heritage in the 1980s. through a network of industrial museums in Izhevsk. The relevance of the research topic is determined by the important role that industrial (now corporate) museums have played and continue to play for the preservation and popularization of industrial heritage. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that so far no one has analyzed the involvement of regional branches of VOOPIK in the work of museums of industrial enterprises from the point of view of their activities in preserving monuments of industrial heritage. As part of the research, archival materials were used, some of which are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. When conducting the research, both general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, evidence) and specifically historical ones (problem-chronological, historical-typological) were used. As a result, the author came to the conclusion that the republican branch of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments provided methodological, consulting and practical assistance to factory museums in order to most effectively and competently identify, preserve and popularize monuments of science and technology that made up the fund of the domestic industrial heritage. And the provision of such assistance was fully consistent with the requirements of the all-Russian movement for the preservation of monuments of science and technology in the 1980s.

Abstract: The object of the study are scientists, teachers, local historians and other progressive-minded residents of the Urals. The subject of the study is their perception of the well–being of their region through the activities of various actors to preserve monuments of industrial heritage. The chronological framework – the 1970s and 1980s – was not chosen by chance. During this period, the desire of a part of the Soviet population to identify and preserve the monuments of the industrial past of their region was emerging, which was expressed not only in publishing activities, but also in extensive practical work. The author identifies a number of functions that were laid down in Soviet times in the process of preserving monuments of industrial heritage: educational, cognitive, aesthetic, image-forming. The relevance and practical significance of the study lies precisely in the fact that these functions can and should be updated at the present time in order to preserve the remaining objects of the industrial heritage of the Urals. The research used materials stored in the central and regional archives, as well as published sources. The complex of scientific methods that were used to achieve the research goal consists of general scientific (analysis, synthesis, induction, analogy) and special historical (problem-chronological, historical-comparative). The author concludes that in the 1970s and 1980s, individual residents of the Urals (scientists, engineers, local historians, teachers) did not in vain begin to attract the attention of the general public to the need to preserve monuments of industrial heritage. They believed that these objects could be used to implement several functions: educational, cognitive, aesthetic and some others. The combination of these functions, or each one individually, can allow a person to feel happy. And this will contribute to the formation of a favorable image of the region. The author believes that the industrial heritage has a huge potential for shaping and maintaining the attractiveness of the region, and therefore the well-being of its happy residents through feelings of demand in the profession, pride in the history and achievements of previous generations. And this factor must be developed and strengthened at the present time, until the remnants of the industrial heritage of the Urals are finally lost.

Abstract: The object of the study is monuments of industrial heritage on the territory of the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions in the 1940-1980s. The subject of the study is the final stage of registering these monuments with the state, associated with the inclusion of these objects in the state lists of monuments. The purpose of the work is to conduct a comparative analysis of the number of industrial heritage objects registered with the state as monuments. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that until now no one has dealt with the problem posed in this article.
The sources were lists of historical and cultural monuments in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions. Some of the sources are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. The methodology of the work consisted of a series of stages, implying the use of both general scientific methods and special historical ones.
As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that by 1989, 37 objects of industrial heritage were registered with the state in the Sverdlovsk region, and 22 objects in the Chelyabinsk region. In relation to the total number of historical and cultural monuments registered, this amounted to 5.8 and 5.6%, respectively. Geographically, the monuments were concentrated not only in regional centers, but also in smaller cities. 18 industrial heritage sites in the Sverdlovsk region had the status of monuments of republican significance, and in the Chelyabinsk region only 1 site had this status. 54 objects out of 59 in both regions were registered as monuments of urban planning and architecture. The author came to the conclusion that the activities for state registration of industrial heritage monuments in the Sverdlovsk region were carried out a little more targeted and efficiently compared to the Chelyabinsk region.

Abstract: The object of the study is the section of monuments of science and technology of the VOOPIK. The subject is the activity of the section of monuments of science and technology for the identification, study, accounting, preservation and updating of the corresponding category of monuments. The purpose of the study is to reconstruct the history of the emergence and functioning of this structural unit in the 1960s-1980s. The territorial framework is limited to the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions, the leading industrial regions of the Urals, on the territory of which there were a large number of monuments of science and technology, monuments of industrial heritage. The author studies the history of the formation of the section of monuments of science and technology, and also gives a description of various types of its activities on the materials of the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions. The problem posed has not yet been the subject of special study, and has only been touched upon in the context of the study of history in general of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments and its regional branches, in particular. This determines the scientific novelty of the article. The source material is represented by archival materials, many of which are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time, for example, unique information about the project to create a Museum of the History of Science and Technology in Chelyabinsk. The author comes to the conclusion that there were both similar directions and significant differences in the activities of these sections. This was determined by several reasons. Of great importance was the personal factor, which also influenced the effectiveness of the functioning of the section of monuments of science and technology