Viktor Petrovich Danilov, who died suddenly and tragically in 2004, was a prolific and innovative historian who devoted his entire career to the study of the Soviet peasantry. (1) In June 2001, I interviewed him in connection with a radio documentary that I was then preparing on the &classification of Sovietera archives. I anticipated a conversation of 30 to 40 minutes, concentrating on the multivolume documentary publication Tragediia sovetskoi derevni (The Tragedy of the Soviet Countryside), of which Viktor Petrovich was the senior editor. (2) It soon became apparent, however, that he wanted to tell me more about his long career and the broader context in which he worked, first during the Khrushchev-era Thaw, then in the ideologically restrictive Brezhnev era, and finally in the years of archival openness that began during perestroika. Having met with him on a number of occasions over the previous decade, I was familiar with much of the story that he related. I encouraged him to go into as much detail as he could. I knew that he had had similar conversations with other colleagues, at least one of which has been published, but to the best of my knowledge no other publication has given as much attention to the subjects we discussed. (3) Our conversation extended over two days and touched on a range of events and experiences from the 1950s to the beginning of the 21st century. Although many of the topics he discussed have been closely examined elsewhere, his personal reminiscences and reflections provide a different illumination. (4) They convey many of the qualities that won him the respect, acclaim, and affection of a wide circle of colleagues and students around the world. They also underscore his distinctive point of view on events past and present and his assessments, not just of the Stalinist Old Guard of the 1960s, but of some of the most prominent people and trends of the post-1991 era. The following text is a verbatim transcription of the interview, omitting only a few passages where Danilov corrected himself or referred to incidental matters unrelated to the issues under discussion. To round out the picture, I have in a few places added in square brackets biographical material drawn from earlier, unrecorded conversations and from the observations of others who knew him well. (5) Danilov began university study after frontline military service in World War II. He was a lieutenant in artillery, an officer younger than many of the men he commanded. This formative experience came up repeatedly in our conversations and in his colleagues' recollections of him. He also spoke warmly about the assistance he received from his family, his siblings in particular, when he began undergraduate study in Orenburg after the war ended. After completing his first degree there, he applied and was accepted for graduate study at the Institute of History (Academy of Sciences of the USSR) in Moscow, and it was at this point that our recorded conversation began. V.D. When I was admitted to graduate study I was required to study the Soviet period. I told them I would work only on the history of the peasantry from the Revolution to collectivization in 1929. In 1950, it was clear to any beginning historian, or even to a student, that one could not conduct independent research or put forward ideas of one's own on problems of Soviet history from the Great Turn onwards. That is why I made such a demand, and I must say it was received with understanding. My dissertation topic from the outset was formulated as the history of the peasantry in the 1920s, on the eve of collectivization. Of course, conditions in the years 1950-53 were very unfavorable for historical research, particularly on the Soviet era. Even for the 1920s, where one could discuss a wider range of problems on the basis of factual material that reflected historical reality, research was still severely [tiazhelo] restricted. …
Read full abstract