Editor's Note

Abstract

In the May 3, 1987 issue of Izvestiia S. V. Tiutiukin, a specialist on the Russian revolutionary movement, published a much deserved critical assessment of the Soviet historical establishment, in which he offered some urgent suggestions for how the new moods of reconstruction [perestroika] and openness [glasnost'], which promise to transform and revitalize Soviet society, might be applied to the historical profession. "The time has come," he said, "to rid history of various extraneous features and deformations, to return her civic spirit, honesty, and fortitude. Moreover, we must put an end to the irresponsibility, the negligence, the feckless repetition of stock phrases, and to the superficiality of which there is more than enough in historical science."1 To date, Soviet historical journals have yet to publish an outstanding piece of writing reflecting the new climate in the Soviet Union; however, maverick historians have raised criticisms similar to Tiutiukin's as well as related concerns on the pages of major newspapers.2 For those of us who monitor developments in Soviet historiography, the immediate years ahead promise to add unprecedented excitement to what can be a soporific and tedious interest.