Abstract
The purpose of this article is to conduct a historical-comparative analysis of the state policies of the British Empire, the Russian Empire, and post-monarchical Russia concerning the mobilization of convicted criminals during the First World War. The research is based on a wide range of literature, archival sources, and legal documents of the period. The methodological foundation of the study is the historical-comparative approach, which enables the identification of the essence of phenomena and processes by comparing the policies of different countries within a shared historical period and in relation to a common problem. The principles of objectivity and historicism are also employed – facts are analyzed within the broader context of socio-political developments and corresponding interdependencies. The scholarly novelty of the article lies in the fact that, for the first time in Ukrainian historiography, the social and political sentiments within the armies and societies of the British Empire and the Russian state during the First World War – as well as the criminogenic situation in the postwar period – have been examined based on the analysis of newly discovered sources and critical engagement with historical documents. The conclusions substantiate the thesis that there were significant differences in the approaches to involving the criminal population in military service. In the British Empire, the mobilization of individuals with criminal backgrounds was driven by the need for manpower. State and social institutions, on the whole, managed to cope with the challenges arising from the inclusion of asocial elements in the military and prevented their destructive influence on the army and postwar society. In contrast, the Russian Empire adopted an exclusionary approach, seeking to keep offenders out of the army. Following the February Revolution, the Provisional Government, guided by populist considerations, permitted the enlistment of amnestied convicts – an initiative that triggered a cascade of destructive consequences, including the disintegration of the army, loss of command and control, and the collapse of post-monarchical statehood.