Jump to content

Historiography in the Soviet Union: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
minor grammar fixes, the tail of the artiicle still has some POV problems
Irpen (talk | contribs)
32,604 edits
rm tautology
Line 3: Line 3:
[[Image:The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg|thumb|right|After: [[NKVD|People's Commissar for the Interior]] [[Nikolai Yezhov]], the young man strolling with [[Stalin]] to his left, was shot in 1940. He was edited out from a photo by Soviet censors.<ref>[http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm The Commissar vanishes] (The Newseum)</ref>]]
[[Image:The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg|thumb|right|After: [[NKVD|People's Commissar for the Interior]] [[Nikolai Yezhov]], the young man strolling with [[Stalin]] to his left, was shot in 1940. He was edited out from a photo by Soviet censors.<ref>[http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm The Commissar vanishes] (The Newseum)</ref>]]


'''Soviet historiography''' refers to [[historiography|practices of writing and studding history]] in [[Soviet Union]]. It was frequently compromised as it had to comply with the [[Soviet]] [[ideology]]. While the degree of the ideological control over the historic scholarship varied in different periods of the [[Soviet Union]]'s [[history of the Soviet Union|history]], Soviet [[historiography]] (and Soviet scholarship in general) was affected by [[Censorship in the Soviet Union|censorship]] and forced adherence to the [[party line]] and [[Marxist]] theories. Soviet scholars were constricted in their research, as research into many areas of history was forbidden or could not diverge from certain assumptions and conclusions; Soviet scholars were also denied access to some parts of the international body of knowledge, as many works of non-Soviet historians were forbidden or censored.
'''Soviet historiography''' was frequently compromised as it had to comply with the [[Soviet]] [[ideology]]. While the degree of the ideological control over the historic scholarship varied in different periods of the [[Soviet Union]]'s [[history of the Soviet Union|history]], Soviet [[historiography]] (and Soviet scholarship in general) was affected by [[Censorship in the Soviet Union|censorship]] and forced adherence to the [[party line]] and [[Marxist]] theories. Soviet scholars were constricted in their research, as research into many areas of history was forbidden or could not diverge from certain assumptions and conclusions; Soviet scholars were also denied access to some parts of the international body of knowledge, as many works of non-Soviet historians were forbidden or censored.


==Criticism==
==Criticism==

Revision as of 19:09, 20 September 2007

File:The Commissar Vanishes.jpeg
The book The Commissar Vanishes by David King discusses falsification of historic photos in Soviet Union in depth, with numerous examples. Some of them can be seen on this cover.
File:The Commissar Vanishes 1.jpg
Before 1940
File:The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg
After: People's Commissar for the Interior Nikolai Yezhov, the young man strolling with Stalin to his left, was shot in 1940. He was edited out from a photo by Soviet censors.[1]

Soviet historiography was frequently compromised as it had to comply with the Soviet ideology. While the degree of the ideological control over the historic scholarship varied in different periods of the Soviet Union's history, Soviet historiography (and Soviet scholarship in general) was affected by censorship and forced adherence to the party line and Marxist theories. Soviet scholars were constricted in their research, as research into many areas of history was forbidden or could not diverge from certain assumptions and conclusions; Soviet scholars were also denied access to some parts of the international body of knowledge, as many works of non-Soviet historians were forbidden or censored.

Criticism

Party line

Historians are dangerous and capable of turning everything upside down. They have to be watched.
Nikita Khrushchev, First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1956[2]

Soviet historiography had been severely criticized by various scholars, chiefly — but not only; see also samizdat — outside Soviet Union, with its very status as scholarly called into question, and described as ideology and pseudoscience.[3] Such powerful criticism stems from the fact that in the Soviet Union, science was far from independent. Critics had pointed out many faults of Soviet historiography: since the late 1930s, it treated the party line and reality as one and the same.[4] As such, if it was a science - it was a science in service of a specific political and ideological agenda, commonly employing historical revisionism.[5] In the 1930s, historic archives were closed, original research sereverely restricted. Many historians turned virtually into propagandists with academic credentials. They were required to pepper their works with references — appropriate or not — to Stalin and other "Marxist-Leninist classics", and to pass judgment — as prescribed by the Party — on pre-revolution historic Russian figures.[6]

The state-approved history was openly subjected to politics and propaganda, similar to philosophy, art, and many fields of scientific research.[2] The Party could not be proven wrong, it was infallible and reality was to conform to this line. Any non-conformist history had to be erased, and questioning of the official history was illegal.[2]

Many works of Western historians were forbidden or censored, many areas of history were also forbidden for research as, officially, they never happened.[2] As such, it remained mostly outside the international historiography of the period.[3] Translations of foreign historiography were often produced in a truncated form, accompanied with extensive censorship and corrective footnotes. For example, in the Russian 1976 translation of Basil Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War pre-war purges of Red Army officers, the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, many details of the Winter War, the occupation of the Baltic states, the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Allied assistance to the Soviet Union during the war, many other Western Allies' efforts, the Soviet leadership's mistakes and failures, criticism of the Soviet Union and other content were censored out.[7]

The official version of Soviet history has been dramatically changed after every major governmental shake-up. Previous leaders were always denounced as "enemies", whereas current leaders were usually a subject of a personality cult. Textbooks were rewritten periodically, with figures - such as Lev Trotsky or Stalin himself - disappearing from their pages or being turned from great figures to great villains.[8][2]

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 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, and as a result the Soviet approach to the study of the Soviet-German relations before 1941 and the origins of World War II were remarkably flawed.[9] In another example, the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 as well as the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1920 were censored out or minimized from most publications, and research suppressed, in order to enforce the policy of 'Polish-Soviet friendship'.[2] Similarly, the tragedies of enforced collectivisation, the wholesale deportations or massacres of small nationalities in the Caucasus or the disappearance of the Crimean Tatars are not recognized as facts worth of mention.[2]

Marxism influence

Further information: Marxist historiography

The problems of Soviet historiography are the problems of our Communist ideology.
Anna Pankratova, Soviet academician, 1956[5]

Another major factors influencing its unreliability was that the Soviet interpretation of Marxism predetermined the research done by historians.[3][2]

The Marxist theory identified means of production as chief determinants of the historical process. They led to the creation of social classes, and class struggle was the 'motor' of history. Hence the sociocultural evolution of societies had to progress inevitably from slavery, through feudalism and capitalism to socialism. All research had to be based on those assumptions and could not diverge in its findings.[2]

The Marxist bias has been criticized, for example, for assigning to the Roman rebellions the characteristics of the social revolution, or for errors in comparing the recent developments in Russia with those in the Western countries (for example, Soviet Union mostly "skipped" the period of capitalism required by Marxist theory before the period of communism can be reached).[2][3]

Often, the Marxist bias and propaganda demands mixed: hence the peasant rebellions against the early Soviet rule were simply ignored - as inconvenient politically and contradicting the Marxist theories.[4] The Kronstadt rebellion, for example, was one of many events that, according to Soviet historiography, simply never happened.[2]

Soviet historians

Mikhail Pokrovsky (1862-1932) was held in highest repute as a historian in the Soviet Union and was elected to the Soviet Academy of Sciences in 1929. He emphasized Marxist theory, downplaying the role of personality in favour of economics as the driving force of history. However, posthumously, Pokrovsky was accused of "vulgar sociologism", and his books were banned. After Stalin's death, and the subsequent renouncement of his policies during the Khrushchev Thaw, Pokrovsky's work regained some influence.

Credibility

Not all areas of Soviet historiography were equally affected by the ideological sturdiness and the regime's sturdiness itself varied considerably over time. The degree of the ideologization of different areas of historic science varied as well. Therefore, despite part of the Soviet historiography being affected by extreme ideological bias, and compromised by the deliberate distortions and omissions, it has produced a large body of significant scholarship which continues to be used in the modern research.[10]

These trends have been most famously portrayed by George Orwell in his classic dystopia, Nineteen Eighty-Four (see also Ministry of Truth).

Another notable criticism was delivered by Victor Suvorov in his book "The Liberator" [8]. He said that "Vladimir Lenin was an enemy", because all his friends were proven to be enemy of the people by the Soviet courts, which are the most democratic and just in the world. The enemies were Lev Trotsky, Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, and Karl Radek. It was Lenin who brought these "wrecklers" to power, so that brave chekists had to kill them all with bullets or ice axes. "Stalin was also an enemy", "as has been proven to the entire world at the historical 20th Congress of the Communist Party". Of course, "Stalin himself destroyed thousands of enemies and spies from his closest surrounding, but he could not exterminate them all", so that his "closest friend Lavrenty Beria and his notorious gang have been executed only after Stalin". Sadly enough, Khrushev, who got rid of Beria, turned out to be a traitor, just like his successor Leonid Brezhnev, who was guilty of terrible corruption.

References

  1. ^ The Commissar vanishes (The Newseum)
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Ferro, Marc (2003). The Use and Abuse of History: Or How the Past Is Taught to Children. London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 9780415285926. See Chapters 8 Aspects and variations of Soviet history and 10 History in profile: Poland.
  3. ^ a b c d Gwidon Zalejko, Soviet historiography as "normal science", in Historiography Between Modernism and Postmodernism, Jerzy Topolski (ed.), Rodopi, 1994, ISBN 9051837216, Google Print, p.179-191.
  4. ^ a b Taisia Osipova, Peasant rebellions: Origin, Scope, Design and Consequences, in Vladimir N. Brovkin (ed.), The Bolsheviks in Russian Society: The Revolution and the Civil Wars, Yale University Press, 1997, ISBN 0300067062. Google Print, p.154-176
  5. ^ a b Roger D. Markwick, Donald J. Raleigh, Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001, ISBN 0333792092, Google Print, p.4-5
  6. ^ John L. H. Keep: A History of the Soviet Union 1945-1991: Last of the Empires, pages 30–31
  7. ^ Lewis, B. E. (1977). Soviet Taboo. Review of Vtoraya Mirovaya Voina, History of the Second World War by B. Liddel Gart (Russian translation). Soviet Studies 29 (4), 603-606.
  8. ^ a b The Liberators (Освободитель), 1981, Hamish Hamilton Ltd, ISBN 0-241-10675-3; cited from Russian edition of 1999, ISBN 5-237-03557-4, pages 13-16
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ Hannes Heer, Klaus Naumann, War Of Extermination: The German Military In World War II, Berghahn Books, 2004, ISBN 1571812326, Google Print, p.304

See also

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historiography_in_the_Soviet_Union&oldid=159225458"