Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T20:39:17.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restructuring and the Non-Russian Past

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Stephen Velychenko
Stephen Velychenko*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The official interpretation of the histories of the nations of the USSR emerged between 1934 and 1953 on the basis of decrees signed by Stalin and/or the Central Committee. This interpretation subsumes the histories of the non-Russian Republics within the “history of the USSR” that begins not in 1917 or 1922 in Moscow, but in prehistoric Asia. The official view recognized the non-Russian nations and republics as separate historical entities, yet imposed upon their pasts a Russocentric statist framework while denying the Russians a separate history of the RSFSR. Within this scheme the history of non-Russian nationalities before they became part of the tsarist state was built around the idea of “oppression” of “the people” and their “struggle” against native and foreign ruling classes. Russian and non-Russian “working people” were assumed always to have been “fraternal” while non-Russian political leaders, before and after incorporation, were judged according to their sympathy and/or loyalty to Russia. Russian political and cultural tutelage of non-Russians was stressed and activists in nineteenth-century national movements were labelled “reactionary” if they were not radical socialists. Official historiography admitted that non-Russians suffered political and cultural oppression but not economic colonialism under tsarist rule. In keeping with the logic of Lenin's The Development of Capitalism in Russia, the official view argued that tsarist economic development was “progressive” for non-Russians because it centralized production and tied “outlying regions” of the empire to the world market. Accordingly, the non-Russian “national bourgeoisie” were “reactionary” because both threatened the integration supposedly demanded by the forces of production. By contrast, during the twenties and the thirties, Russian/non-Russian relations in the Tsarist Empire were presented in terms of Lenin's Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Historians argued that tsarist centralism impeded the development in non-Russian provinces and that “national liberation movements” were “progressive” responses to Russian economic colonialism.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , Fall 1994 , pp. 325 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 Association for the Study of Nationalities of Eastern Europe and ex-USSR 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. P. K. Urban, Smena tendentsii v sovetskoi istoriografii (Munich: 1959) Konstantin Shteppa, Russian Historians and the Soviet State (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1962); Frederick C. Barghoorn, Soviet Russian Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956).Google Scholar

2. For example: B. D. Datsiuk (ed.), Istoriia SSSR (Moscow: 1963). This argument was first made in 1934 but became the official view after the War. Lowell Tillet, The Great Friendship (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1969), pp. 360–64.Google Scholar

3. For example: N. N. Vanag, Kratkyi ocherk istorii narodov SSSR (Moscow: 1932).Google Scholar

4. Tillet, The Great Friendship; M. Braichevshy, “Pryiednannia chy vozziednannia,” Shyroke more Ukrainy (Paris—Baltimore: Smolyshyp, 1972), pp. 21–52, S. Velychenko, “The Origins of the Current Official Soviet Interpretation of Ukrainian History: A Case 5tudy in Policy Formulation,” Forschungen zur Osteuropäischen Geschichte 45 (1900).Google Scholar

5. Cyril Black (ed.), Rewriting Russian History (New York: Vintage Books, 1962) Samuel H. Baron, Nancy Heer (eds.) Windows on the Russian Past (American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, 1977).Google Scholar

6. Ivan Myhul, “Politics and History the Soviet Ukraine. A Study of Soviet Ukrainian Historiography, 1956–1972.” Ph.D. Diss. (Columbia University, 1973).Google Scholar

7. Aleksandrov, “O nekotoryhh zadachakh obshchestvennykh nauk v sovremennykh usloviakh,” Bolshevik No. 14 (July 1945), p. 17.Google Scholar

8. N. Ponomarev, (ed.), Istoriia SSSR (Moscow: 1966) I:xxviii.Google Scholar

9. R. Szporluk, “National History as a Political Battleground: The Case of Ukraine and Belorussia.” Michael Pap (ed.), Russian Empire. Some Aspects of Tsarist and Soviet Colonial Practices (Ukrainian Historical Association, 1985), pp. 137–38; R. Szporluk, “Dilemmas of Russian Nationalism,” Problems of Communism (July-August, 1989), pp. 16–33.Google Scholar

10. Thomas Sherlock, “Politics and History under Gorbachev,” Problems of Communism (May-August 1988), pp. 16–42; Mark Von Hagen, “History and Politics under Gorbachov: The Politics of Autonomy and Democratization,” Paul Lerner (ed.), The Soviet Union 1988 (New York: Crane Russak, 1989), pp. 181–198.Google Scholar

11. T. F. Kuzmina, “Vsesoiuznaia nauchnaia konferentsii ‘Velikyi Oktiabr i grazhdanskaia voina. Istoricheskyi opyt i sovremennost',” Voprosy istorii No. 10 (1987), pp. 115–18.Google Scholar

12. “Sovremennaia ne marksistskaia istoriografiia i sovetskaia istoricheska nauka,” Istoriia SSSR No. 1 (1988) pp. 172–202.Google Scholar

13. Voprosy istorii No. 2 (1988), pp. 3–10.Google Scholar

14. “‘Krugloi stol’ istoricheska nauka v usloviakh perestroiki,” Vosprosy istorii No. 3 (1988), pp. 3–57.Google Scholar

15. “Istoriki i pisateli o literature i istorii,” Voprosy istorii No. 6 (1988), p. 72.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., p. 83.Google Scholar

17. Ibid., p. 95.Google Scholar

18. “Perestroika, obshchestvoznanie, leninizm. Obsuzhdenie v Prezidiume AN SSSR,” Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR No. 4 (1990), pp. 3–38. Politbureau member V. Medvedev summed up an important conference on methodology with a vague comment on the need for a consensus based on principle alongside a statement about the need for orientation in ideological dicussion. “Istoricheskoe soznanie obshchestva—na uroven zadach perestroiki,” Voprosy istorii No. 1 (1990), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar

19. “Vsesoiuznaia nauchnaia konferentsiia po natsionalnomu voprosu,” Istoriia SSSR No. 5 (1988), pp. 217–221.Google Scholar

20. S. R. Ispuu, P. K. Lepik, “Ob odnom opyte perestroiki shkolnogo istoricheskogo obrazovaniia,” Prepodavanie istorii v shkole No. 4 (1988), pp. 74–75.Google Scholar

21. “Kruglyi stol v redaktsii zhurnala prepodavaniie istorii v shkole,” Prepodavanie istorii v shkole No. 2 (1989), pp. 85–86. A Russian delegate cautioned that “dividing up” the history of the USSR could lead to pupils regarding their national histories as something unique, while a Ukrainian delegate (Vaksman) suggested that teachers’ colleges should prepare a course on “Socialist Internationalism.” pp. 81,83.Google Scholar

22. Literaturna gazeta No. 10, 1988.Google Scholar

23. “Natsionalnyi vopros i mezhnatsionalnye otnosheniia v SSSR: istoriia i sovremmenost,” Voprosy istorii No. 5 (1989), pp. 41,55. See also the bold criticism by M. A. Annanepesov, “Prisoedinenie Turkmenistana k Rossii: Pravda istorii,” Voprosy istorii No. 11 (1989).Google Scholar

24. V. Sarbei, “Vsesoiuznyi ‘kruhlyi stil',” Ukrainsky istorychnyi zhurnal No. 3 (1990), pp. 152–55; “Chitatelskaia konferentsiia v Palange,” Voprosy istorii, No. 2 (1990), pp. 150, 155, 166–68, 180. Despite “liberal” utterances at the conference, one of the participants reiterated old interpretations in his publications. See: V. Sarbei, “M. M. Arkas i ioho ‘Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy,” Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal No. 7 (1990) pp. 100–14. See also his comments to the 1990 reprint edition of Arkas's history.Google Scholar

25. A. N. Iakovlev, “Dostizhenie kachestvenno novogo sostoianiia sovetskogo obshchestva i obshchestvennye nauki,” Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR No. 6 (1987), p. 68.Google Scholar

26. “Ideologicheskie problemy mezhnatsionalnykh otnoshenii,” Izvestiia Tsk KPSS No. 6 (1989), pp. 82,87.Google Scholar

27. I. L. Mankovskaia, IU. P. Sharapov, “Kult lichnosti i istoriko—partiinaia nauka,” Voprosy istorii KPSS No. 5 (1988), pp. 57–60; V. K. Iakunin, “Formuvannia kultu osoby Stalina ta istoriko partiina nauka,” Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal No. 11 (1989), p. 21; “Pryntsypova politychna otsinka,” Literaturna Ukraina June 21, 1990.Google Scholar

28. M. Von Hagen, “Soviet Historiography and Nationalities,” Nationalities Papers (Spring, 1990), p. 55.Google Scholar

29. R. Moroz, “Rosiiska inteligentsiia i natsionalne pytannia na tli glasnosti i perebudovy,” Suchasnist No. 7–8 (1990), pp. 171–85. Russian, unlike English, American or French intellectuals, have no tradition of criticizing the colonial activities of their compatriots.Google Scholar

30. “Postanovlenie obshchego sobraniia otdeleniia istorii AN SSSR 21 ianvariia 1988 g.,” Istoriia SSSR No. 3 (1988), p. 208; S. S. Khromov, S. V. Tiutkin, “Vedushchyi tsentr po izucheniiu otechestvennoi istorii,” Istoriia SSSR No. 2 (1986), pp. 78–107; S. S. Khromov, “XXVII siezd KPSS i nekotorye aktualnye problemy izucheniia otechestvennoi istorii,” Istoriia SSSR No. 6, (1986), pp. 3–21.Google Scholar

31. S. L. Tikhvinshy, “Ianvarshyi (1987 g.) Plenum TsKPSS i istoricheskaia nauka,” Voprosy istorii No. 6 (1987), pp. 3–13.Google Scholar

32. S. L. Tikhvinshy, “Zadachi koordinatsii v oblasti istoricheskoi nauki,” Istoriia SSSR No. 1 (1988), p. 119i; S. L. Tikhvinshy, “70 letie Velihogo Oktiabria i zadachi po uvelicheniiu vklada istoricheskoi nauki v uskorenie sotsialno-ekonomicheskoho razvittia strany,” Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR No. 3 (1988), p. 78.Google Scholar

33. G. I. Marchuk, “O zadachakh Akademii nauk SSSR vytekaiushchikh iz reshenii XIX Vsesoiuznoi partiinoi konferentsii,” Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR No. 2 (1989), p. 11.Google Scholar

34. “Otchet o rabote metodologicheskogo seminara,” Istoriia SSSR No. 3 (1989), pp. 184–185.Google Scholar

35. S. G. Kara-Murza, “Sovetskaia nauka i biurokraticheskaia sistema: grani vzaimodeistviia,” Voprosyfilosofii No. 4 (1989), p. 66; “Problemy istoricheskoi nauki,” Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 6 (1989), pp. 82, 87–88.Google Scholar

36. “Pidvyshchuvaty efektivnist istorychnykh doslidzhen, Visnik Akademii Nauk Ukrainskoi RSR No. 9 (1989), p. 13.Google Scholar

37. Iu. Kondufor, S. Kulchytskyi, V. Sarbei, V. Smolyi, I. Khmil, “Ukraina: Dialektyka Istorychnoho Rozvytky,” Kommunist Ukrainy No. 9 (1989), pp. 13–20; No. 11 (1989), pp. 4?-51. This article suggests that November 1988 resolutions of the General Meeting of the Ukrainian Academy, specifying only historical research into the Soviet period was to be “extended,” will be ignored. “Pro osnovni zavdannia po vykonanniu v Akademii nauk URSR rishen XIX Vsesoiuznoi konferentsii KPRS,” Visnyk Akademii Nauk URSR No. 3 (1989), p. 74, 19, 23. See also V. Sarbel et. al., Istoriia Ukrainy v zapytanniakh ta vidpovidakh (Kiev: 1989).Google Scholar

38. R. Szporluk, “Dilemmas of Russian Nationalism,” p. 30.Google Scholar

39. Iu. Afanasiev, “Perestroika i istoricheskoe znanie,” idem. (ed.), Inogo ne dano (Moscow: 1988), pp. 491–508. “Problemy istoricheskoi nauki,” Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 6 (1989), p. 81, refers to a dispute between those who favor total rejection of the existing dogmatic method and those prepared to jettison only its “deformations.” V. Sarbei's Ocherki po metodologii i istoriografii istorii Ukrainy (Kiev: 1989) and a favorable review of a new biography of Khmelnytsky that avoided discussing Ukrainian-Russian relations in detail by V. Kotliar, “Slovo pro Bohdana,” Kommunist Ukrainy No. 2 (1990), p. 90–93, indicate the latter dominate the Ukrainian historical establishment.Google Scholar

40. Some philosophers have begun to deal with this problem. In Ukraine, see: S. Kosharnyi, “Fenomenolohiia Husserlia i dosvid hermenevtychnoho osnovopolozhennia humanitarhoho znannia v istorychnomu naukovchenni Dilteia,” Filosofka i sotsiolohichna dumka No. 8 (1989) pp. 67–76; No. 9, pp. 68–76.Google Scholar

41. V. Tolz, E. Teague, “Tsipko Urges Ridding Soviet Society of Marxist Ideology,” Report on the USSR Vol.2, No. 23 (June 8, 1990), p. 5.Google Scholar