Historiography in the Soviet Union
Soviet historiography is the methodology of history studies by historians in the Soviet Union (USSR). In the USSR, the study of history was marked by restrictions imposed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Soviet historiography is itself the subject of modern studies.
Theoretical approaches
George M. Enteen identifies two approaches to the study of Soviet historiography. A
In Markwick's view there are a number of important post war historiographical movements, which have antecedents in the 1920s and 1930s. Surprisingly these include culturally and psychologically focused history. In the late 1920s Stalinists began limiting individualist approaches to history, culminating in the publication of Stalin and other's
While the triumph of
Characteristics of Soviet historiography
Soviet-era historiography was deeply influenced by Marxism. Marxism maintains that the moving forces of history are determined by material production and the rise of different socioeconomic formations. Applying this perspective to socioeconomic formations such as slavery and feudalism is a major methodological principle of Marxist historiography. Based on this principle, historiography predicts that there will be an abolition of capitalism by a socialist revolution made by the working class. Soviet historians believed that Marxist–Leninist theory permitted the application of categories of dialectical and historical materialism in the study of historical events.[5]
Marx and Engels' ideas of the importance of class struggle in history, the destiny of the working class, and the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolutionary party are of major importance in Marxist methodology.[5]
Marxist–Leninist historiography has several aspects. It explains the social basis of historical knowledge, determines the social functions of historical knowledge and the means by which these functions are carried out, and emphasizes the need to study concepts in connection with the social and political life of the period in which these concepts were developed.[5]
It studies the theoretical and methodological features in every school of historical thought. Marxist–Leninist historiography analyzes the source-study basis of a historical work, the nature of the use of sources, and specific research methods. It analyzes problems of historical research as the most important sign of the progress and historical knowledge and as the expression of the socioeconomic and political needs of a historical period.[5]
Soviet historiography has been severely criticized by scholars, chiefly—but not only—outside the Soviet Union and Russia. Its status as "scholarly" at all has been questioned, and it has often been dismissed as
That criticism stems from the fact that in the Soviet Union, science was far from independent. Since the late 1930s, Soviet historiography treated the
The state-approved history was openly subjected to
Many works of Western historians were forbidden or
The official version of Soviet history was dramatically changed after every major governmental shake-up. Previous leaders were denounced as "enemies", whereas current leaders usually became the subject of a
Certain regions and periods of history were made unreliable for political reasons. Entire historical events could be erased, if they did not fit the party line. For example, until 1989 the Soviet leadership and historians, unlike their Western colleagues, had denied the existence of a secret protocol to the Soviet-German
Fundamental works
Marxist influence
The Soviet interpretation of Marxism predetermined much of the research done by historians. Research by scholars in the USSR was limited to a large extent due to this predetermination. Some Soviet historians could not offer non-Marxist theoretical explanations for their interpretation of sources. This was true even when alternate theories had a greater explanatory power in relation to a historian's reading of source material.[6][11]
The Marxist theory of
Soviet historiography interpreted this theory to mean that the creation of the Soviet Union was the most important turning event in human history, since the USSR was considered to be the first socialist society. Furthermore, the
Soviet historians have also been criticized for a Marxist bias in the interpretation of other historical events, unrelated to the Soviet Union. Thus, for example, they assigned to the rebellions in the Roman Empire the characteristics of the social revolution.[6][11]
Often, the Marxist bias and propaganda demands came into conflict: hence the peasant rebellions against the early Soviet rule, such as the Tambov Rebellion of 1920–21, were simply ignored as inconvenient politically and contradicting the official interpretation of the Marxist theories.[8]
Soviet views of history
Soviet historians trace the origin of feudalism in Russia to the 11th century, after the founding of the Russian state. The class struggle in medieval is emphasized because of the hardships of feudal relations. For example, Soviet historians argue that uprisings in Kiev in 1068–69 was a reflection of the class struggle. There was a constant struggle between the powers of the princes and those of the feudal aristocracy, known as the boyars. In regions like Novgorod, the boyar aristocracy was able to limit the prince's power by making the office and the head of church elective.[21]
The Mongol conquests of the 13th century had significant consequences for Russia. Soviet historians emphasize the cruelty of Genghis Khan and the suffering and devastation that Russia endured. Soviet historians attribute the success of Genghis Khan to the fact that feudalism among his people had not developed, which would have involved with feudal and political strife. By contrast, the peoples opposed to the Mongols were in a mature state of feudalism and the political disunity that went with it. Soviet historians conclude that the Mongol domination had disastrous consequences for Russia's historical progress and development. It is also argued that by bearing the full weight of the Mongolian invasions, Russia helped to save Western Europe from outside domination.[21]
The struggle against foreign domination and the heroism of its participants is a recurring theme in Soviet historiography. Soviet historians have an upbeat assessment of
Reliability of statistical data
"The deceptive figure". This is the translation of a widely cited article ("Lukavaia Tsifra") by journalist Vasilii Seliunin and economist Grigorii Khanin, in Novyi Mir, February 1987, #2: 181–202[23]
Various
As with all Soviet historiography, the reliability of Soviet statistical data varied from period to period.
Some researchers say that on occasion the Soviet authorities may have completely "invented" statistical data potentially useful in historical research (such as economic data invented to prove the successes of the Soviet industrialization, or some published numbers of
Credibility
Not all areas of Soviet historiography were equally affected by the ideological demands of the government; additionally, the intensity of these demands varied over time.[26] The impact of ideological demands also varied based on the field of history. The areas most affected by ideological demands were 19th and 20th century history, especially Russian and Soviet history.[29] Part of the Soviet historiography was affected by extreme ideological bias, and potentially compromised by the deliberate distortions and omissions. Yet part of Soviet historiography produced a large body of significant scholarship which continues to be used in the modern research.[30]
Life experiences of individual Soviet historians
When Eduard Burdzhalov, then the deputy editor of the foremost Soviet journal on history, in spring of 1956 published a bold article examining the role of Bolsheviks in 1917 and demonstrated that Stalin had been an ally of Kamenev—who had been executed as a traitor in 1936—and that Lenin had been a close associate of Zinoviev—who had been executed as a traitor in 1936—Burdzhalov was moved to an uninfluential post.[citation needed]
Underground historiography
The
Influence of Soviet historiography in modern Russia
The 2006 Russian book, A Modern History of Russia: 1945–2006: A Manual for History Teachers[33] has received significant attention as it was publicly endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin said that "we can't allow anyone to impose a sense of guilt on us" and that the new manual helps present a more balanced view of Russian history than that promoted by the West. The book says that repressions, carried out by Stalin and others, were "a necessary evil in response to a cold war started by America against the Soviet Union." It cites a recent opinion poll in Russia that gave Stalin an approval rating of 47%, and states that "The Soviet Union was not a democracy, but it was an example for millions of people around the world of the best and fairest society."
The Economist contends that the book is inspired by Soviet historiography in its treatment of the Cold War, as it claims that the Cold War was started by the United States, that the Soviet Union was acting in self-defense, and that the USSR did not lose the Cold War but rather voluntarily ended it. According to The Economist, "rabid anti-Westernism is the leitmotif of [the book's] ideology."[34]
In 2009, president
See also
- Agitprop (Soviet propaganda)
- Bibliography of the Russian Revolution and Civil War
- Bibliography of Stalinism and the Soviet Union
- Bibliography of the post-Stalinist Soviet Union
- Censorship in the Soviet Union
- Historiography of World War II#USSR
- Propaganda in the Soviet Union
- Samizdat (illegal underground publications in Soviet Union)
References
- ^ a b Enteen, George M. "Recent Writings about Soviet Historiography," Slavic Review 61 (2) 2002: 357–363. jstor stable link
- ^ Joseph Stalin and others. "Short Course" History of the Soviet Communist Party", Moscow, 1938.
- ^ a b Roger D. Markwick, "Cultural History under Khrushchev and Brezhnev: from Social Psychology to Mentalités," The Russian Review 65 2006: 283–301.
- Politizdat. p. 512.
- ^ a b c d Историография (Historiography) in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969–1978 (in Russian)
- ^ .
- ^ ISBN 0-393-04818-7, p. 101
- ^
- ^
- ^ John L. H. Keep: A History of the Soviet Union 1945–1991: Last of the Empires, pp. 30–31
- ^ ISBN 978-0-415-28592-6. See Chapters 8 Aspects and variations of Soviet history and 10 History in profile: Poland.
- Soviet Studies29 (4), 603–606.
- ISBN 5-237-03557-4, pp. 13–16
- ^ Bidlack, Richard (1990). Review of Voprosy istorii i istoriografii Velikoi otechestvennoi voiny by I. A. Rosenko, G. L. Sovolev. Slavic Review 49 (4), 653–654.
- ^ Decision to commence investigation into Katyn Massacre, Małgorzata Kużniar-Plota, Departamental Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation, Warsaw 30 November 2004, (Internet Archive) (also see the press release online), last accessed on 19 December 2005, English translation of Polish document
- ISBN 0-300-08705-5
- ^ Martin Vennard (27 June 2012), Tsar Nicholas - exhibits from an execution, BBC News, retrieved 3 April 2017
- ^ Rappaport, Ekaterinburg: The Last Days of the Romanovs (2009), p. 142
- ^ Oleksander, Oleksander. "Normanist Theory". encyclopediaofukraine.com. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
- ^ a b c d History of the USSR: From the earliest time to the Great October Socialist Revolution. Volume 1. D.P. Kallistov ed. Progress Publishers. 1977
- ^ Hall, p. 221
- ^
- ^ and following chapters
- ^
- ^
- ^ A. G. Volkov Census of 1937 Facts and Fictions originally published in Перепись населения СССР 1937 года. История и материалы/Экспресс-информация. Серия "История статистики". Выпуск 3–5 (часть II). М., 1990/ с. 6–63
- ISBN 978-0-674-01801-3.
- ^ Sellers, Lea. Soviet Dissidents and the Western World. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs (at Tufts University), 1976.
- ISBN 0-231-06350-4
- ^ New Manuals Push A Putin's-Eye View In Russian Schools
- ^ Russia's past. The rewriting of history, November 8, 2007, The Economist
- ^ УКАЗ Президента РФ от 15.05.2009 N 549 Archived 2009-05-23 at the Wayback Machine (in Russian)
- ^ Osborn, Andrew (2009-05-21). "Medvedev Creates History Commission". The Wall Street Journal.
Further reading
- Avrich, Paul H. (1960). The Short Course and Soviet Historiography. Political Science Quarterly 75 (4), 539–553.
- Enteen, George M. (1976). Marxists versus Non-Marxists: Soviet Historiography in the 1920s. Slavic Review 35 (1), 91–110.
- Gefter, M. J. & V. L. Malkov (1967) Reply to a Questionnaire on Soviet Historiography. History and Theory 6 (2), 180–207.
- Ito Takayuki (ed.), Facing up to the Past: Soviet Historiography under Perestroika. Sapporo: Hokkaido University, 1989.
- Keep, John (ed.),Contemporary History in the Soviet Mirror. NY; London: Praeger, 1964.
- Markwick, Roger D. Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography, 1956–1974. NY: Palgrave, 2001.
- Mazour, Anatole G. & Herman E. Bateman (1952). Recent Conflicts in Soviet Historiography. The Journal of Modern History 24 (1), 56–68.
- Mazour, Anatole G. The Writing of History in the Soviet Union. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1971.
- McCann, James M. (1984). Beyond the Bug: Soviet Historiography of the Soviet-Polish War of 1920. Soviet Studies36 (4), 475-493.
- Asher, Harvey (1972). The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of M. N. Pokrovsky. Russian Review31 (1), 49–63.
- Baron, Samuel H. (1974). The Resurrection of Plekhanovism in Soviet Historiography. Russian Review33 (4), 386–404.
- Daniels, Robert V. (1967). Soviet Historians Prepare for the Fiftieth. Slavic Review 26 (1), 113–118.
- Eissenstat, Bernard W. (1969). M. N. Pokrovsky and Soviet Historiography: Some Reconsiderations. Slavic Review 28 (4), 604–618.
- Enteen, George M. (1969). Soviet Historians Review Their Own Past: The Rehabilitation of M. N. Pokrovsky. Soviet Studies20 (3), 306–320.
- Enteen, George M. (1970). Pokrovsky's Rehabilitation: A Reply to Bernard W. Eissenstat. Soviet Studies22 (2), 295–297.
- McCann, J. M. (1984). Beyond the Bug: Soviet Historiography of the Soviet-Polish War of 1920. Soviet Studies, 36 (4), 475–493.
- McNeal, Robert H. (1958). Soviet Historiography on the October Revolution: A Review of Forty Years. American Slavic and East European Review17 (3), 269–281.
- Schlesinger, Rudolf (1950). Recent Soviet Historiography. II. Soviet Studies2 (1), 3–21.
- Schlesinger, Rudolf (1950).Recent Soviet Historiography. III. Soviet Studies2 (2), 138–162.
- Schlesinger, Rudolf (1950). Recent Soviet Historiography. I. Soviet Studies1 (4), 293–312.
- Schlesinger, Rudolf (1951). Note on Recent Soviet Historiography, Part IV. Soviet Studies3 (1), 64.
- Shapiro, Jane P. (1968). Soviet Historiography and the Moscow Trials: After Thirty Years. Russian Review27 (1), 68–77.
- Barber, John. Soviet Historians in Crisis, 1928–1932.
- Pundeff, Marin. History in the USSR. Selected Readings.
- Shteppa, Konstantin F. Russian Historians and the Soviet State.
- Black, C. E. Rewriting Russian History. Soviet Interpretations of Russia's Past.
- Nancy Whittier Heer. Politics and History in the Soviet Union
- Švābe, Arveds (1949). The Story of Latvia, Chapter 9 – Lies and Violence as Instruments of Russian Policy. Latvian National Foundation
- Kuuli, Olaf 2008: "Eesti ajaloo kirjutamisest Stalini ja Hruštšovi ajal" (ISBN 978-9949-18-195-7.