Recent Conflicts in Soviet Historiography

Abstract

T HE writing of history in our society is far from being a clearly defined process. The form it takes is dependent upon the writer's definition of the nature of history; and the number of differing definitions is roughly equal to the number of historians. However, historians in those countries which do not exert a formal censorship are, in general, agreed that their purpose is to discern and to present truth. The truth as presented depends upon two factors: (i) the which are discovered and (2) the frame of reference, conscious or unconscious, from which each historian works. It is not easy to accept the tenet of the scientific school that the mere presentation of the so-called facts will preserve the purity of the product from the attitudes and limitations of the individual historian, for the process of selecting reveals as much of the historian's philosophy as it does of the subject he treats. Nevertheless, the product of historians in a society which does not deliberately direct their efforts is rich in information and in thought, disparate and contradictory though it may be. In other societies, where an active leadership conceives its duty as either the preservation of existing values and forms or the attainment of definite ideals and configurations, the purpose of writing history is, from the official point of view, quite different. The historian on occasion may be left free to write history as he conceives it, if his conception is not in open conflict with the opinions and aims of the active rulers. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has in the past conducted, and is currently carrying on, a great campaign to create a society in the image of an ideal. It may be assumed that the role of the historian in the struggle is not ignored by the government of the U.S.S.R. But what is the part assigned to the historian? May he write as he pleases, provided that his product does not contradict the tenets of the faith; or must he enrol himself, willingly or otherwise, as an ideological soldier of society? What subjects are forbidden to him? What are the truths which he must present? What has been the nature of his work? The answers to these questions are difficult, often impossible, to find, for there is a paucity of sources. The comments and articles of men living in the U.S.S.R. today presumably represent the attitude of the Communist party and of the government-at least, the attitude in force at the date of publication. In large measure the articles available consist of criticisms of fellow-historians luckless enough to have given the appearance of deviation. Critical articles of this type indicate specific errors which chastised historians have presumably committed. But in the same breath the critics pour out a shower of name-callings, accompanied frequently by undefinable cliches, such as Trotskyites, alienMarxists, or bourgeois cosmopolitans. It is this terminology which often bewilders the reader and leaves him wondering as to the precise nature of the offense committed by the defendant. Such an atmosphere renders academic life and research work at times totally unbearable. In another respect the role of writers working within the U.S.S.R. is not clear. Are they applying principles in their savage blasts of criticism, or are many of their outbursts the exploitation of political avenues to professional advancement? Professional and political advancement in the U.S.S.R. are often synonymous. Another source, more satisfactory but even more confusing, consists of the studies by Russian emigre historians or by more remote students of Russian history. Taken individually, each of these studies is plausible; however, no two of them treat the subject within the same frame of reference. There is only one matter upon which all studies are in accord, and that is the absence of freedom for the scholar working within the U.S.S.R. The problem remains, however, to discover the line followed by the government and the party of the U.S.S.R. and to discover the extent to which historians are expected to conform. It