Share this article with friends
V. A. DUNAYEVSKY, A. M. SAKHAROV and S. L. SENIAVSKY. Research Work by Young Historians
The article examines certain problems connected with the training of young historians in the light of the new and higher demands to scientific dissertations, which are formulated by the Twenty-Second CPSU Congress and specified in a number of decisions adopted by the Party Central Committee and the Soviet government. In the past five years some 1,500 theses were presented and successfully maintained by candidates for a master's degree, including nearly 700 dissertations devoted to the history of the CPSU. Thematically, most of the young dissertators have made a sharp turn towards urgent historical problems directly connected with contemporaneity. However, there are still many important problems of historical research which do not receive the attention they deserve. This refers, in particular, to the history of Soviet democracy; research in contemporary history is still marked by many serious flaws and deficiencies; the scope of research in the history of a number of Asian, African and Latin-American countries is extremely narrow and limited; Soviet scientists making research in Russian and world history do not pay enough attention to diverse aspects of internal policy and the history of culture. Research into problems of topical importance, especially in the history of Soviet society and contemporary history, will continue to remain the prevailing trend in the development of Soviet historiography and in the training of young historians. But it should be emphasized that there can be no question of curtailing research into other historical periods and "ceding" them to bourgeois historiography. It is necessary to ensure a comprehensive study of the entire world-historic process and the training of new scientific personnel in all departments of history.
Of great significance is the problem of choosing the subject for every dissertation research. The article cites several examples of both extremely limited and excessively broad dissertation themes. In some cases the dissertators are deprived of the possibility to make profound generalizations, while in other cases their research work is too superficial and lacks the necessary completeness. Of particularly great importance in this respect is the struggle against scientifically deficient and clearly inadequate works. In many cases scientific dissertations are based on popular pamphlets, newspaper articles, ethnographical essays, etc.
The article also examines certain organizational problems connected with the training of young scientists. Among other things, the authors deem it necessary to include the postgraduates' work on dissertations in the general plans of research work drawn up by higher educational establishments and university departments, achieve a better coordination of publishing activities and improve the work of reference libraries and bibliographical departments catering to scientists.
A. M. SAMSONOV. Research into the History of the Great Battle on the Volga
The author of this article singles out three periods in the historiography of the problem. The first period began after the battle and continued up to the end of the Great Patriotic War. The historical literature published during that period, the article says, was devoted in the main to the unparalleled heroism of the Soviet Army and gave an essentially correct appraisal of the battle on the Volga. At the same time it should be pointed out that the description of the stormy wartime events in the literature of those years was still of a general character and did not give a comprehensive analysis of their concrete historical significance.
The second period of research in the history of the battle on the Volga, embracing the entire post-war period up to the Twentieth CPSU Congress, is dominated by the tasks of a purely historiographical nature. As distinct from the war period, the study of the problem under examination was distinguished not only for its broader character but also
for its more extensive documentary basis and more profound character of research. The author points out that many historical works which appeared before the Twentieth CPSU Congress were marked by serious mistakes which should be directly attributed to the pernicious influence of the Stalin personality cult.
The third period in elaborating the history of the great battle on the Volga began after the Twentieth Party Congress. Elimination of the negative consequences of the personality cult, the author notes, has had a beneficent influence on historical research in this field. In the past few years there appeared many memoirs by direct participants in the events, documentary publications and research works devoted to this great and heroic battle.
A comprehensive description of the battle on the Volga in the second and third volumes of the many-volume "History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941 - 1945," should be regarded as an important achievement for scientific research into this problem.
Side by side with analyzing a number of works published in the Soviet Union, the article contains a brief survey of foreign literature. In conclusion the author outlines certain aspects of further research into the problem.
V. I. POPOV. The United States of America and the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Negotiations of 1939
American bourgeois historiography asserts that on the eve of the second world war the United States, true to its neutralist policy, did not interfere in European affairs generally and in the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations in particular. Drawing on American, British and German documents, the author of the article convincingly shows that in actual fact the U.S.A., counting on an armed conflict between Germany and the U.S.S.R. and on the resultant isolation of the Soviet Union, exerted much effort to influence the development of events in Europe and steer them in a direction favourable to America's imperialist circles.
V. I. Popov discloses the essence of America's so-called "policy of neutrality," showing that it was directly opposed to the policy of collective security so consistently and energetically advocated by the Soviet Union. The author particularly stresses the fact that the U.S. policy of "neutrality" contributed to the breakdown of the three-power negotiations by encouraging the reactionary circles in Britain and France which did not want to conclude an alliance with the U.S.S.R.
The article shows how American diplomats in Britain, France, Poland and Rumania resorted to every means at their disposal to wreck the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations. The U.S. ambassadors in London and Paris made strenuous efforts to sow distrust in the U.S.S.R., to question its sincerity and ability to render effective military assistance to Britain and France. The U.S. State Department turned down every proposal which could facilitate the conclusion of an equal agreement on the establishment of a three-power alliance. Thus, the U.S.A. refused to send its ambassador in Brussels, J. Davies, to Moscow, though the latter had expressed the desire to go to the U.S.S.R. with the aim of facilitating agreement between the three powers.
The American government advised the ruling circles of Britain and France to display no hurry in accepting the Soviet proposals; on the contrary, it recommended long and persistent bargaining in order to secure conditions facilitating an armed conflict between the Soviet Union and Germany. At the end of July 1939 the U.S.A. intervened in the negotiations, endeavouring to compel the U.S.S.R. to accept conditions which could lead to war between the U.S.S.R. and Germany in the absence of reliable guarantees from its partners. In other words, the U.S.A. wanted the Soviet Union to accept conditions which Britain and France had failed to impose on it in the course of the negotiations held in April-July 1939.
The ruling circles of Britain and France, the author notes in conclusion, were able to sabotage the conclusion of a pact with the U.S.S.R. because they were encouraged and supported by the United States.
I. I. KOSTYUSHKO. The Centenary of the 1863 Uprising in the Polish Kingdom. Lithuania, Byelorussia and Ukrainian Territories Situated on the Right Bank of the Dnieper
The article gives a brief historiographical characteristic of the problem and examines the prerequisites, character and motive forces of the uprising, the collaboration of the revolutionary forces in the common struggle against feudal and national oppression and shows the significance of this struggle for the further historical development of the peoples.
The author points out that the uprising in the Polish Kingdom was marked by its national-liberation, anti-feudal character. Enjoying the support of the revolutionary forces of other nations, the Polish people waged a heroic struggle for its national independence and for the democratic transformation of the social system.
The uprising in Lithuania, Byelorussia and the Ukrainian territories situated on. the right bank of the Dnieper was a component part of the insurrectional movement of 1863 and was directed against the feudal and national oppression by the tsarist autocracy.
I. I. Kostyushko substantiates his conclusion that the 1863 uprising had two distinct trends-democratic and bourgeois-landlord. The democratic forces headed by Z. Padlevsky, S. Bobrovsky, Z. Serakovsky, V. Vrublevsky, K. Kalinovsky, A. Matskiavichus and other revolutionary democrats fought for radical bourgeois-democratic reforms, for an independent Polish democratic republic, for the freedom of the Lithuanian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian peoples. The bourgeois-landlord elements, while striving for the re-establishment of Poland's independence and consenting to certain reforms, at the same time tried to secure their dominant position in the social, economic and political spheres; completely disregarding the interests of the Lithuanian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian peoples, they demanded the inclusion of Byelorussian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian territories in the Polish state.
The article also examines the attitude of the Russian revolutionary democrats to the uprising. Recognizing the right of the Polish people to national independence, sympathizing with its liberation struggle and regarding it as an important part of the all-Russian democratic movement, A. I. Herzen and other Russian revolutionaries supported the Polish people. During the 1862 negotiations in London and St. Petersburg between representatives of the insurgent movement and the Russian revolutionary organizations, an agreement was reached on the common platform of action by the Polish and Russian democrats. The Russian revolutionaries championed the interests of the Lithuanian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian peoples. Hundreds of Russian revolutionaries took part in the uprising and, many of them gave their lives for the peoples' freedom.
The 1863 uprising met with warm sympathy and support from the democratic forces in other countries.
The 1863 uprising was of great significance for the further historical development of the Polish, Lithuanian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian peoples. It abolished feudal relations in the Polish Kingdom and compelled the tsarist autocracy to carry out an agrarian reform in Poland. As a result of the uprising the peasants in Lithuania, Byelorussia and the Ukrainian territories situated on the right bank of the Dnieper were given back part of the land taken away from them after making inventories and regulation charters (charters regulating the mutual relations between the landlord and his liberated serfs), and their redemption payments were reduced to a certain extent. The uprising enriched the traditions of the peoples' revolutionary struggle for liberation.
The liberation movement of 1863 was an important factor in the European democratic movement. It contributed to the further development of the revolutionary struggle in Russia and other European countries.
of the journal "Problems of History" No. 1 for 1963
Academician B. N. Ponomaryov. The Tasks Confronting Historical Science and the Training of Historians and History Teachers.
Articles: V. A. Dunayevsky, A. M. Sakharov and S. L. Seniavsky. Research Work by Young Historians; A. M. Samsonov. Research into the History of the Great Battle on the Volga; V. Y. Laverychev. State Regulation of the Russian Economy in the Pre-Revolutionary Period; V. I. Popov. The United States of America and the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Negotiations of 1939; I. I. Kostyushko. The Centenary of the 1863 Uprising in the Polish Kingdom, Lithuania, Byelorussia and Ukrainian Territories Situated on the Right Bank of the Dnieper. Historical Science in the U. S. S. R. and Abroad: Book Reviews. The Fate of a Book (a review of G. Guseinov's "From the History of the Social and Philosophic Thought in 19th-century Azerbaijan"); "A Critical Examination of Bourgeois Concepts of Russia's History in the Period of Feudalism"; A. N. Glinkin. Brazil's Contemporary History (1939 - 1959); L. I. Ginzberg and Y. S. Drabkin. German Anti-Fascists in the Struggle Against Hitler's Dictatorship (1933 - 1945); M. M. Karliner. The Labour Movement in Britain During World War I (1914 - 1918); V. E. Motylev. The Economic History of Foreign Countries. The Era of Pre-Monopoly Capitalism; E. Andics. The Hapsburg Romanov Alliance. Diplomatic Preparations for the Tsarist Intervention in Hungary in 1849 (Budapest); V. M. Karlgren. Neutrality or Alliance? German-Swedish Relations in the Early Period of World War I (Stockholm); G. Chastenet. A History of the Third Republic. Years of Illusion, 1918 - 1931 (Paris). Chronicle of Scientific Life: The Second U.S.S.R. Session Devoted to the History of the Ancient East, etc. Contents of historical journals published in the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries, notes on articles published in foreign journals; new Soviet and foreign books.
Permanent link to this publication:
LRussia LWorld Y G