“The drama of the history of Hungary in the 20th century is great” / historian Alexander Stykalin about key events

In February 2014, a meeting was held at the Memorial about the situation of the victims. political repression in the post-Soviet space – the situation in modern Hungary was discussed. To provide context for conversations about Hungary in the 1940s-1980s, it is important to understand the big picture , in what political, social, economic space people lived, against what background the repressions of the Rakosi era took place, in what conditions they took place after 1956 and later. Historian Alexander Stykalin spoke about key events in Hungarian history of the 20th century, and his interlocutor Boris Belenkin illustrated them with examples from Hungarian cinema, which is distinguished by stunning introspection.

Highlights of the conversation: * communist experiment with the Hungarian Soviet Republic * Treaty of Trianon * alliance with the Third Reich and subsequent occupation of Hungary * the roots of Hungarian anti-Semitism and the Holocaust in Hungary * another painful loss of Transelvania * communist Hungary 1950-1960s * repressions of the era of Rákosi and Kádár * a depoliticized society that has accepted the rules of the game against the background of a rising standard of living * permitted concept of history.

Boris Belenkin, historian, board member of the Memorial Society, head of the Memorial Society library:

Our guest is Alexander Sergeevich Stykalin, in my world order the largest domestic specialist on the history of Hungary, especially on the history of the 20th century. Our series of round tables “Social and legal status victims of political repression" is a specific topic concerning the life of residents of Eastern European countries in the 20th century (, Poland, Spain,and others). From my point of view, it is the conversation about Hungary that requires some special explanations and introductions, because it is possible that not everyone will understand the mechanisms of rehabilitation without the historical Hungarian context, unlike, say, Ukraine or Poland. Let's start with the word "Trianon".

Alexander Stykalin , leading researcher at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, specialist in the modern history of Hungary, the politics of the USSR in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe:

This is a very important episode in the Hungarian history of the 20th century, without it much is not clear even in today’s self-awareness of Hungarians, which is difficult to imagine withoutTreaty of Trianon 1920 . What happened then? Hungary, which had a thousand-year tradition of statehood, was during the 16th and 17th centuries, and by the beginning of the 18th century was completely incorporated into the monarchy. The Hungarian fairly developed national movement fought to expand its autonomy within the Habsburg monarchy. The revolution of 1848-1849 ended unsuccessfully, but then the Habsburgs were forced to compromise. And in 1867, the dualistic Austro-Hungarian state appeared - although weakening with every decade, it was quite a powerful European power, one of the largest in Europe. It was about two equal components this monarchy, Hungary in domestic policy had complete freedom and influenced foreign policy countries. As we know, Austria-Hungary, being an ally of Germany, lost the First World War and was among the defeated powers. Both Austria and Hungary were equally seen as the defeated sides. From the ruins of the Habsburg monarchy, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were formed, which were considered as representatives of the victorious side. Hungary was faced with certain conditions. A peace treaty was concluded with her, the territory was reduced by more than three times. I should, of course, clarify that Hungary (meaning the Hungarian half of the Habsburg monarchy, ruled from Budapest) was, of course, multinational. Post-Trianon Hungary is a country where Hungarians made up 97-98% of the population, and before Trianon there were 51-52% of them, thanks to the successful assimilation of Jews (in fact, there were about 48% of Hungarians). Before the Treaty of Trianon, the Hungarian part of the Habsburg monarchy roughly coincided territorially with the Hungarian medieval state, crown Hungarian lands since the time of St. Stephen (X century), occupying an area of ​​320 thousand. square kilometers, in post-Trianon Hungary - 23 thousand. Before Trianon, the territory of Hungary was larger than today's Poland, occupying 312 thousand square kilometers. Croatia had autonomy, thereby providing access to the Adriatic. As we know, during the interwar era, the landlocked country was led by an admiral - Miklos Horthy, he was the commander navy the Habsburg monarchy, and later became the ruler of the independent Hungarian state. And the Treaty of Trianon, after which the country was reduced threefold, was very painful for the Hungarian national consciousness. It was difficult to explain why certain territories were given to other states. Of course, there were national outskirts where the Hungarians were clearly in the minority, but, at the same time, there was also Southern Slovakia, where more than half a million Hungarians lived; in eastern Transylvania, with a numerical superiority of Romanians, there were entire enclaves where the Hungarian population dominated.

B.B. Were there still a minority of Hungarians in Vojvodina?

A.S. A minority, but nevertheless it is approximately 400 thousand people, maybe a little less, but still about 25%. And, of course, it was very difficult to draw fair boundaries with such strong ethnic stripes. Those borders that were drawn became a source of great tension; a time bomb was laid under the entire European security system, especially in the Danube-Carpathian region. Three million Hungarians (that is, almost every third person) found themselves outside their nation state: two million in Romania, also in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc.

Of course, Trianon united Hungarian society, just as it is happening in today's Ukraine - people of different political persuasions united under the influence of an external challenge.There have been many such examples in history, for example, when Stalin launched a campaign against Yugoslavia in 1948, the Serbs and Croats who brutalized each other during World War II forgot about it for a while.

So the Treaty of Trianon became a factor of consolidation for Hungarian society. Of course, there was a shift to the right, various socialist and liberal ideas were perceived by the mass consciousness as something contributing to the weakening of the country, the loss of these territories, and Horthy’s right-wing authoritarian regime enjoyed the support of a significant part of the population.

B.B. Let's go back a little, 1919, the so-calledHungarian Soviet Republic …

A.S. Yes, a communist experiment, 133 days, from March 21 to August 1, 1919.

B.B. But if only. If the Red Army had gotten there, would the republic have had a chance to hold out or not?

A.S. I don't think there was a chance. What stood in the way of the world Bolshevik revolution? Nationalism of the peoples of this region. During the 1920 war with Poland, Polish nationalism did not allow Bolshevik ideas to spread further across Europe. In the same way, if the Red Army found itself in the Hungarian region, it would have to deal with formations that have a national idea behind them, the desire to implement their national project. Here we cannot talk only about Hungary, abstracting from the multinational region and the rise national movements: South Slavic, Czechoslovakian, etc.

B.B. I mean that already in 1920-1930, when for obvious reasons the Communist Party was banned, it enjoyed support in the territory of Horthy Hungary?

A.S. She was a rather marginal force. In different periods, of course, in different ways, because during the world economic crisis 1929-1933, the worsening economic problems, many, both the extreme left and the extreme right, played on this. Naturally, this contributed to domestic political polarization. Here are the 1920-1930sHorthy regime was consolidated on a right-wing but moderate-right platform. Count István Bethlen, who died here in Lubyanka, the most outstanding prime minister of the Horthy era, was right-wing, was a political realist, understood that Hungary should demand a revision of unjust borders, but, if possible, peacefully - wait for a favorable political situation. Bethlen insisted in the early 1930s that it was necessary to slowly emerge from foreign policy isolation and develop relations with other countries to the extent possible, without abandoning the ultimate goal of revising borders. This is the era of Bethlen consolidation. An important point is that even the moderate left supported Bethlen. He entered into an agreement with the Social Democrats on the terms that they support foreign policy, during strikes they only put forward economic requirements and so on.

B.B. Alexander Sergeevich, the period of Horthy’s reign is extremely important for subsequent events in Hungary, but I want to ask aboutHungarian mentality (although I don’t really like this word). This is what Hungarian society was like with its established mentality, like, for example, Soviet society or the society of the Third Reich? Still, Hungary in the first half of the 20th century was nonsense - perhaps only externally. People trying to find out something about Hungary of that period are immediately surprised by the position of the ruler.

A.S. He was the regent (in the absence of the monarch). Charles of Habsburg, the last emperor and successor to Franz Joseph, who ruled the Habsburg monarchy for 48 years, died in December 1916. He was the last head of the monarchy of which the Kingdom of Hungary was an integral part. The King of Hungary tried to seize power in 1921, twice organized coups, and he had supporters - legitimists. But Horthy stopped this matter by arresting the king’s supporters and forcing them to leave the country along with the king. Then a law was passed to dethronize the Habsburgs and prohibit them from occupying the Hungarian throne. Why? They were afraid of an external negative reaction - if the Habsburgs receive the throne in Budapest, it means they are making claims to all their possessions: Czechoslovak, Yugoslav, Romanian, etc. Therefore, anti-Habsburg laws were adopted in both Austria and Hungary. The Horthy elite understood perfectly well that if the throne was transferred to Charles, war would begin.

B.B. And under whom was he regent?

A.S. With yourself. Acting King. According to the constitution, he had fairly broad powers, but still limited, he had to consult with both houses of parliament. I will not explain these mechanisms in detail, but I will say that later his powers expanded. Although the powers of the prime minister were not small, especially when the prime ministers were large individuals, Bethlen, for example. Most often, people from aristocratic families became prime ministers, with good education, right-wing conservative convictions. After the crisis of 1929-1933, the situation changed, polarized, traditional conservatism receded into the background, because right-wing radical movements modeled on Germany and Italy increasingly came to the fore (the most typical example is the Crossed Arrows Party, Nyilaskeresztes párt, “Nylashists” ”, which seized power in 1944 in part of the territory). Many played on the feeling of discontent in society. You asked about the mentality, but the mentality still remains. Experienced injustice - what Europe did to us in 1920! - still sits deeply in the consciousness of the average Hungarian. Even Hungarians of consistently liberal convictions still consider Trianon to be an injustice, they just do not propose to radically reconsider everything. I attend receptions at the Hungarian Embassy, ​​the Romanian Embassy, ​​and

On December 1, when Romanians have a holiday, National Unity Day, in honor of the formation of a unified Romanian state in 1918 (Transylvania was annexed), there is national mourning in Hungary. And it is very difficult to reconcile this. Any Romanian will say: “This is our ancestral territory, we have more rights" Any Hungarian, if he formulates it carefully, will say: “Not only ours, but ours too,” given the connection of this territory with national culture, traditions and statehood.

The Transylvanian principality existed as an independent state in the 16th and 17th centuries. At the beginning of the 18th century, the Transylvanian prince Ferenc Rakoczi led the national liberation anti-Habsburg movement under the sign of Hungarian statehood. The principality was dominated by Romanians, but it was the mass of the people, and the elite were represented by Hungarians, so in principle it was a phenomenon of Hungarian statehood. And the anti-Habsburg struggle was the struggle of the Hungarian elite. But in the same way, Romanians will say that this is an integral part of their history. If we take Hungarian-Slovak relations, they are even more complicated. Slovakia did not have its own statehood, and the Slovak state project could be implemented exclusively on the lands of the Hungarian crown. How this can be done, with the help of the Czechs or in another way, is another question. But you need to keep in mind that the entire territory of Slovakia is the upper counties of Hungary ( Comitat - from the 10th century to 1918 administrative-territorial unit of the Kingdom of Hungary. - UI ), just like Transcarpathian Ukraine. The Czechoslovak project, in the form in which Masaryk implemented it in 1918, was a form of the Czech project, in principle, to which the Slovaks were matched. Later, the Slovaks, who were not satisfied with their position as part of Hungary, were not satisfied with being part of Czechoslovakia. I will not elaborate, I will only emphasize the complexity and irreconcilability of national projects in this region.

The Slovak and Romanian national projects could only be implemented under the condition of the collapse of historical Hungary, and not otherwise.

B.B. Post-Ryanon Hungary emerged. External world embraced her in a friendly embrace, and this state had to interact with its neighbors before the outbreak of World War II. We are now returning to the 1920s-1940s, and I want to move on to János Kádár’s Hungary, which I caught. I was born in 1953 and was an ordinary moviegoer at the Soviet cinema in the 1960s and 1970s. Hungarian cinema seemed to me quite free, freer than Polish cinema in certain periods. The wonderful film “Kings, Regents and Clowns” (dir. Mariashshi) about the events of 1921, the war drama “Cold Days” (in the Soviet box office “Roundup in January”, dir. Kovach). Having grown up,

I realized what was so amazing about Hungarian films - perhaps no national cinema has ever delved into itself or explored it so much. Amazing introspection, attempts to answer the question “who are we?” Why are we like this?

And mostly these were films relating to the history of Horthy-Salash historical Hungary over the past 20 years. How she sat in everyone’s soul!

A.S. And a little later they began to turn to 1956, at first carefully, then more and more often. The drama of the history of Hungary in the 20th century is great. This is Trianon, and the events of World War II, say,Holocaust . It is still debated how many Hungarian Jews died during the Holocaust in 1944. In the literature, the maximum figures of 680 thousand were mentioned, it was believed that they were exaggerated, but when one historian, based on in-depth demographic analysis, tried in his monograph to prove that the real figure was 410-450 thousand, he was accused of understatement. And in fact, it’s difficult to figure it out, because some left, and it’s not known who died.

B.B. Since we're talking about the Holocaust, let's develop this topic. Hungarian Jews, as you mentioned in passing, were very Hungarian-patriotic.

A.S. The national identity was truly Hungarian, they assimilated.

B.B. Let's then touch on a not very politically correct issue, but we must touch on it - Hungarian anti-Semitism. How did this happen, was it a standard move for countries captured by the Third Reich, or was there a specific Hungarian flavor?

A.S. It certainly was. One must understand why the Jews were so assimilated and with such a developed Hungarian identity. The fact is that even during the time of the Habsburgs, the authorities made the most liberal policy towards Jews, who made up 4-5% of the population, in order to turn them into allies, to neutralize centrifugal challenges from national movements: Romanian, Slovak, etc. They were assimilated to make patriots out of them. And indeed, in late XIX- at the beginning of the 20th century there was a regime of maximum favorability for Jews in the economy and domestic politics, provided that they acted as patriots of the country. They, say, could buy nobility, I can give examples. Later, on the eve of the First World War, the containment of Jews is noted, when it turns out that by 5% Jewish population accounts for 30% of bank deposits. In the economy, the position of nationally colored capital was very powerful by the end of the Habsburg era. Active participation of Jews in revolutionary events 1918-1919 (I speak roughly, but it can be called that way) did not destroy Jewish capital; it dominated even in the Horthy era, which caused discontent. A strong confrontation between Jews and non-Jews has developed in the banking sector, in industry, in business, jurisprudence, culture, except, perhaps, in the agricultural sector. At the same time, Jews, of course, were patriots of the country.

But there was still a confrontation between two directions, Jewish and, say, pochvenniki, focused on national traditions. Usually when we read works on the history of Hungarian literature, it is presented as a debate between populists and urbanists. Urbanists, as a rule, are figures of Jewish culture.

There were, of course, Jews, there was a large synagogue in Budapest, and there were also those who converted to Christianity, but they were perceived as the Jewish wing of the national economic, intellectual and spiritual elite. Not political - after all, they weren’t really allowed into politics. And this state of affairs since the time of the Habsburgs gave rise to anti-Semitism, especially among small nobles (less among aristocrats), and this is a fairly large percentage of the population - it seemed offensive that you were provided for with everything, received an education, a position, but suddenly someone becomes more successful. Small and middle nobles could not withstand competition, especially in the economy. Although if we take the history of Hungary in the 19th century, the era of Kossuth, for example, then these nobles were the engine of the national economy.

B.B. Is what we know from cinema and literature true - that the interwar nobility held Viennese balls once a week? Did you live according to 19th century models?

A.S. It happened, it happened. Nostalgia for the Habsburg era. But to the extent that it was possible, it was still an expensive matter. So we lived depending on the profits. In 2005, we published the work of the prominent Hungarian political scientist István Bibo, “The Jewish Question in Hungary after 1944,” it was written just at the end of the 1940s, and in it Bibo reveals the roots of anti-Semitism and tries to understand why they grew historically.

The fact that anti-Semitism assumed such proportions during the war played, of course, decisive role an external factor, but there were anti-Semitic sentiments within the country as well.

B.B. Tell me, was the force that seized power in Hungary in 1944, the Arrow Cross Party (Nilashists) led by Ferenc Szalasi, a mass or marginal movement in the 1930s?

A.B. In other words, why was there not a mass resistance movement in Hungary, like, say, in Yugoslavia? Hungary received the opportunity from Hitler to reconsider its borders. I didn't talk about this, but it's very important. Even before the start of World War II, Hungary, with the help of Germany and Italy, was able to gradually restore part of its borders. After Munich agreement in November 1938, Hungary received by arbitration Southern Slovakia and part of Transcarpathia. In the spring of 1939, it occupied Transcarpathia entirely. Most important point- Second Vienna Arbitration on August 30, 1940, when Hungary received half of Transylvania. Finally, with the outbreak of the war against Yugoslavia, in April 1941 it received Vojvodina. These are also tragic events in the history of the country. Horthy concluded a treaty of truce and friendship with the Yugoslav monarchy in December 1940 - somehow they tried to maintain the status quo, without completely surrendering to Hitler. At the end of March 1941, a coup d'etat took place in Yugoslavia, a pro-British government came to power, and Germany immediately reacted to this and demanded that Hungary let its troops through. Prime Minister Count Teleki, who concluded this agreement, preferred to pursue a policy of maneuvering. He shot himself in protest against the country being drawn into war. Horthy wrote a letter to Hitler: “Count Teleki has become a victim of the conflict of conscience that the entire Hungarian nation is now experiencing.” Horthy submitted against his will, Hungary entered World War II.

Politicians could have different views on the question of how far to go in helping Hitler, but 99% of Hungarians considered the return of northern Transylvania to be an act of justice, which was achieved in fact thanks to Hitler and Mussolini - this reduced the anti-fascist mood in society.

There was an opinion: “Thanks to Germany, we have returned what rightfully belongs to us.” Therefore, Hungary remained the last most faithful ally of Germany; the Romanians defected on August 23, 1944 and, by the way, lost because of this.

B.B. There is a war going on. Hungary, a kind of state without a king, an ally of the Third Reich, is fighting on the eastern front, everything is fine in quotes. Hungarian aviation takes part in battles on the same eastern front, and Istvan, the son of Miklos Horthy, serves in it. But there are also myths about a separate peace, that Horthy at some point either wanted to leave the war or enlist the support of France, Great Britain, and America. What are myths and what is reality?

A.S. The younger Horthy is not even the most important thing. Really, Hungarian army was defeated near Voronezh, on the Don, she was inflicted a strong beat during the Battle of Stalingrad. Horthy even asked Hitler in letters not to burden the Hungarian army with military tasks outside the historical lands. But Hitler demanded that the Hungarians participate in the eastern campaign, just like the Romanians, and the Hungarians agreed to this.

The Romanians, like the Hungarians, when their rulers Antonescu and Horthy decided on the participation of the army in the actions on the eastern front, took into account that if their countries refused this, Hitler would have more reasons to give up some disputed territories to the enemy, that is, to an ally who is in fact a historical enemy. They competed with each other in loyalty to Hitler!

This is known from many sources. So, on the Don at the beginning of 1943, the Second Hungarian Army was defeated, and this strengthened anti-war sentiment in Hungarian society. And so the then Prime Minister Miklos Kallai, with the help of his agents, began to establish contacts with the British and Americans through neutral countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey). Hitler knew about this, because the process continued throughout 1943.

B.B. The younger Horthy was not involved in this? There were various rumors.

A.S. He died in 1942, possibly on early stage and was. This did not contradict his sentiments, but he did not have time to take an active part in the process. On March 19, 1944, Hungary was occupied by Germany precisely because it was an unreliable ally. They wanted to arrest Kallai, he disappeared, the government changed. Horthy acquiesced to Hitler, although he initially encouraged Kallai to negotiate. Here you need to understand why they were not very effective - neither the British nor the Americans trusted Horthy’s team, they would like to deal with another government, receive guarantees that the country would abandon extremes, repeal anti-Semitic laws adopted under pressure from Hitler, etc. d. Not to mention the fact that there were emigrant governments - Yugoslav, Czechoslovak, which were hostile to the attempts of the Hungarian authorities to withdraw from the war and thereby lubricate their negative role. But the British demanded from Kallai an early announcement of withdrawal from the war, after Italy had announced it. But Kallai and Horthy could not do this, because they understood that the country would immediately be occupied by Germany. And so it happened, on March 19, Germany occupied Hungary, the terror began, the Holocaust, when half a million Jews were killed. The situation began to change on August 23, when the Red Army was already advancing and Mihai, the king of Romania, who is still alive today, led a coup d'etat, and Romania declared war on Germany, switching sides in one day. The Hungarian Horthyists were worried - the Romanians are here, we are about to lose Transylvania! It was at this time that attempts to get out of the war were intensified, Horthy sent his agents to Moscow for negotiations. But Mihai immediately realized that there was nowhere to go, you only needed to talk with Moscow, and the Hortists still hoped for help from the Adriatic from the British-Americans. From the very beginning there was an intention not to contact Moscow as much as possible, and this led to delay. When they realized that Moscow was closer, it was already too late. In the end, a coup happened, Horthy, as an unreliable person for Germany, was simply removed and interned. He was first put under house arrest, and on October 15-16, 1944 he was transported to Bavaria. He was released by the occupying Anglo-American troops, and Horthy was not convicted as a war criminal precisely because he tried to get out of the war. He died in 1957 in Portugal at the age of 89. Four Hungarian prime ministers were executed as war criminals: Bárdossy, Imrédy, Stojai and Szálasi. And people like Kallai or Horthy, that is. those who tried to break with Germany, no one sought to bring them to trial. A special conversation about Count Bethlen, he was arrested by the KGB and he died here, but that’s another story - they were afraid that this would be a figure that would unite political forces, pro-American and pro-British on an anti-Soviet platform. We've gotten ahead of ourselves. This means that a coup took place in Hungary on October 15-16, when Horthy was removed, and the Nilashists (Salashists) seized power. They were an extreme right-wing party with a pro-German orientation, like German fascists. This movement was not massive, it was quite peripheral, had problems with the authorities, Horthy periodically persecuted and limited them. But certain circumstances worked for the Nilashists - the revision of the Trianon, for example. And they declared that they could seek justice with the help of Germany.

B.B. What percentage of the population supported them?

A.S. The elections of 1939 really showed that such sentiments were popular; extreme right parties (there were several of them, and there was squabbling between them) received quite a lot of votes, 10-15 percent. In different periods and in different areas in different ways.

Of course, without German help they would not have come to power. Therefore, there is no need to say that the majority of the population supported them, but, of course, a fairly significant part of the population was passive.

B.B. Alexander Sergeevich, how adequate is Fabri’s film “The Fifth Seal” to the events described? Would you recommend watching it? This is exactly Salasi Hungary, November 1944.

A.S. Oh, the film is very good, it’s worth watching... In general, the situation was very difficult, the Red Army took Budapest for a month and a half, and fighting in Buda took place, roughly speaking, from December 28, 1944 to February 13, 1945.

B.B. Alexander Sergeevich, I have a remark - I don’t know how much of this is a memoir aberration, and how much of it is true. When in the 1970s I talked with a war veteran, a very nice person in whom I had complete trust, he said that Hungarians were not captured alive by us. He explained it this way: we entered the house, and the whole family was stabbed to death, and this simple family, not noble. The Hungarians fought to the last. And our soldiers considered Hungarian cruelty much stronger than German cruelty.

A.S. He is a witness to events, this is an interesting perception. But I want to say that even generals went over to the Soviet side with their subordinates. Several large Hungarian formations transferred entirely back in October-November 1944, as the Red Army advanced. A pro-Soviet government was formed in Debrecen, headed by Army General Horthy. But the witness is right that the pro-German part of the officers and soldiers resisted very steadfastly. This was not an irrational sympathy for Germany, they simply relied on Germany because it helped restore the territory of the state.

B.B.What can you say aboutHolocaust in Hungary , about the participation of the Salashists in it?

A.S. The peak of the Holocaust was April-June 1944. Szalasi was not prime minister then, Stoja was. And later, under Salashi, around November, many Jews were no longer there, they were deported to Germany.

B.B. But in famous book father of George Soros, Tivadar, it seems that we are talking about the Salashis.

A.S. I am not contrasting one with the other, I am simply clarifying that the main wave of terror against Jews was the period from April to June. AND most of Jews were destroyed or given to the Germans before the Salashi coup, although there was terror later. Horthy is responsible for this, by the way. But only the Yugoslavs demanded that he be condemned as a war criminal, but the British did not agree to this, even Stalin did not insist. Horthy, perhaps, should have been condemned for the fact that in the spring and summer of 1944 the mass extermination of Jews took place with his connivance as head of state.

B.B. The Nilashists came to power and stayed for three to four months. There was terror. How is the number of victims calculated?

A.S. Of course there was terror. The casualties, as I already said, were fewer. Perhaps several tens of thousands of people. As a rule, these were those who did not want to go to fight on the side of Germany. There were many incidents where people were shot because they refused to take up arms. It was no longer so important whether he was a Jew or not. There were Jews who wanted to be killed, but then Szalashi mobilized them to build defensive structures, dig trenches, and in such conditions many died. So there was terror against the enemies of the regime, the enemies of Germany, but not so massive, because the Red Army was already advancing, it was necessary to think about how to defend.

B.B. In my remarks I refer a lot to cinema. There was a Hungarian film in 1948 directed by Radvanyi, “Somewhere in Europe”, Bela Balazs wrote the script. The film is specifically named that way; it does not specify that this is Hungary, but in front of us is an absolutely scorched space. The space where they passed... well, not the Huns, that's a bad play on words, but a dead field where some wolf children were collecting ears of corn. To what extent does this metaphor, this artistic painting, resemble Hungary?

A.S. Close to the truth. Scorched earth. Budapest was destroyed, 20% of the national wealth was lost. Pest was liberated faster, but fighting continued in Buda for a month and a half. 140 thousand Red Army soldiers died for the liberation of the country. All this must be taken into account. When we analyze, we note the mood in our society - how many people have died there, and you are trying to rebel. So the country was destroyed, the bridges across the Danube were blown up, all this was later restored. There are sources, memoirs, diaries of people from different sides, witnesses of events.

But Germany capitulated, and the threat comes from the other side! The Red Army, which liberated the world from Germany, could not bring freedom, because those who do not have it cannot bring freedom to anyone. It's interesting to speculate on this topic. The role of the Red Army is positive, but it must be borne in mind that its arrival did not save the countries of this region from new troubles, problems, etc.

B.B. If we start talking about Hungary in a year, it seems to me that we will again have to talk about it separately. No in European context, but separately. Considering that after World War II she lost everything. And there was no question of returning. If earlier there were illusions, dreams, Viennese balls, then she woke up, and it turned out that Hungary had lost more than Germany. And the 20th century for her began not in 1914, “along with the war,” as Akhmatova wrote, but in 1945. There have been and will continue to be conversations about the victims of political repression in post-war Hungary. Everything happens there differently than in other states.

A.S. Well, in fact, for Hungary, the 20th century began with Trianon, although, of course, there is a lot of truth in what you said. There were some hopes for minor adjustments to the Treaty of Trianon, because Romania was also a defeated country. And therefore, the Hungarians hoped that at the Paris Peace Conference they would be able to detach 10-15 thousand square kilometers from Romania. Arguments were made such as an inconveniently located railway, etc. And the fact is that the British and Americans in this dispute were inclined to make a little concessions, but Stalin was firm - Transylvania should be Romanian. In 1945-1946, the Western powers yielded to Stalin, and the Trianon borders were restored. I would say this, you are right in that most Hungarians were forced to understand that there will be no radical revision of the borders. The country has already lost the Second World War. We can only talk about minor adjustments, but nothing more. And the Treaty of Paris of 1947 was not perceived by the national consciousness as painfully as the Treaty of Trianon of 1920, because they knew that everything was leading to this. A lot can be said here, for example, why Stalin did not want to revise the borders. And, by the way, he could. For example, on June 22, 1941, the war began, and on the 23rd, Comrade Molotov summons the Hungarian ambassador and tells him: “If your country remains neutral, we will guarantee you Transylvania after the war.” But the game went differently, the Hungarian elite chose Germany. I will not go into details of how this happened; the episode with the air attack on the Hungarian city of Kassha, now Slovak Kosice, has still not been clarified ( On June 26, 1941, the city was allegedly bombed Soviet aviation, although no clear evidence of this has been found. - UI ). And after the war, the game for Hungary began again. Romania was already controlled by Moscow to a greater extent, and it was strategically more important due to its geopolitical situation, being the first country in the Balkan direction. This can be seen from the documents; within the framework of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, the commissions of Litvinov, Maisky and others worked, which wrote certificates for Stalin on how to draw borders in Europe between different states.

In certificates dating back to 1944, it is written that “Romania is strategically more important for us,” which means Transylvania should be left behind - for Stalin the question is clear.

Plus another argument that in Romania in 1945 there was a government essentially controlled by the communists, and in Hungary in November 1945, at the insistence of the allies, free elections are held. The Communists received 17%, by the way, this is a lot, although they were disappointed, and the Party of Small Farmers received 57%. But, having received a constitutional majority, they were forced, at the request of the USSR, to form a coalition government. Why am I saying all this? The situation in Hungary was more complex, and there was no point in giving Transylvania to it.

B.B. Alexander Sergeevich, now we have come to this space where there are elections. Trials are underway against the Salashists, against those involved in war crimes. And the year 1947 is approaching, the rule of the communists, Matthias Rakosi, will soon begin, the totalitarian rule, which, by and large, will last five years. Can we say that of the European countries involved in the war in one way or another, the Hungarian population was drawn in with greater intensity and in larger numbers? Why do I phrase it this way? Because when we talk about subsequent waves of repression (just or unfair), it turns out that they affected large quantity citizens, went in many directions.

A.S. If we take the Second World War, then in Yugoslavia there was much greater involvement of the population. I wouldn't single out Hungary. Yes, two armies fought on the eastern front, 80 thousand died only killed, but on the territory of the country itself fighting did not arrive until the fall of 1944. German troops occupied it in March and exterminated part of the population, but there were no hostilities for a long time.

B.B. At the beginning of the conversation I mentioned the Hungarian mentality. Now we have reached communist Hungary. Still, it is inhabited by those who were born under a completely different regime, who grew up under Horthy. When we talk about the years 1950-1960, is it important to take into account how these Hungarians were shaped by the entire previous history of the 20th century?

A.S. Oh, this is what I want to focus on here - on the specifics of the Kadar regime (Janos Kadar actually led Hungary from 1956 to 1988, being the Secretary General of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party. - UI ). I stood and stand that it is the fruit of the events of 1956. His policy is that there is no need to squeeze.

The first few years there was a fairly tough policy, when people were subjected to repression, and then a period of liberalization began. There is no need to oppress people all the way, because then they will explode.

B.B. And everything that happened before 1956?

A.S. Naturally, generations also remembered what happened in the first half of the century. They also remembered about Trianon, although all these grievances were not exaggerated. The fact is that Moscow did its best to prevent irredentist demands from being made. Boundaries are set for centuries! But there were still difficulties. And over time, as the crisis of socialism deepened, they grew.

And it was important for Kadar to create a depoliticized society in Hungary: you can do small business, you can listen to foreign music (completely apolitical culture), just don’t get involved in politics. Because any political activity can easily develop into opposition. The people accepted these rules of the game in large part because the standard of living was rising. It was possible to “sign” an agreement between society and the authorities.

Look, ? But it’s calm in Hungary. Because Kadar proclaims economic reforms, the same as in Czechoslovakia. By the way, this interesting topic, I published works on it. The fact is that economic reforms took place in the two countries in parallel, and Kadar supported the Czechoslovaks, but only until these reforms spread from economics to politics. As soon as he saw that the party was losing control in Czechoslovakia, he immediately changed tactics.

B.B. How does it turn out (I’m again deliberately simplifying) that the pre-war war has been overgrown with reality in the minds of Hungarians? Or is it a feeling of guilt, a stage has passed and we will not return? Or should we understand ourselves? Why does Hungarian cinema delve into the questions “who are we?” Why did we do this in Vojvodina?” Where in Rákosi-Kádár's Hungary can one see what has been experienced before?

A.S. No, of course, the past is not overgrown. But generations that survived certain events, say, World War II, pass away, and with each new generation more and more mythology arises. The young people did not witness the past and this is not the subject of their immediate historical memory, they know it from stories, from various sources. During Kadar's time there wasown concept of history . Naturally, Hungary's role in the war was condemned. But it was also allowed to criticize the Rakosi period and express criticism of the previous era. There was quite a lot of freedom in the interpretation of his national history. But it was impossible to call the events of 1956 a “revolution” and question the legitimacy of the arrival of the Soviet army. Trianon could be called a “national tragedy”, but it was impossible to demand the return of Transylvania. And in general the authorities did not approve of such opinions. After all, any mention in the central press that Trianon was a tragedy could cause a diplomatic demarche on the part of Romania, and Kadar did not need this. In the 1970s and 1980s, the emphasis was on demanding that the Romanian authorities respect the rights of the Hungarian population. This was a factor that united the Hungarians, and to this day interest in the situation of their compatriots abroad is a consolidating moment for Hungarian society.

B.B. Okay, let's continue. And now things are happening inside Hungaryrepressive campaigns , primarily during Rákosi's time, but also after 1956. Are these already new repressions belonging to a new era and new history, or are they stretching back into the past?

A.S. The repressions were also different. Let's say, 1949, the Raik case is going on ( Laszlo Rajk, a major figure in the Hungarian Communist Party and minister, was arrested and executed in 1949. - UI ), but at that time it was perceived ambiguously, because people far from communism saw in it a showdown between communists. But in 1956, the public, and especially young people, were already very different, and for some Raik became a symbol of the struggle against Stalin (although he himself was no better than those who destroyed him).

B.B. Tell me, was there an anti-Semitic flair around all this or not?

A.S. Undoubtedly. The leadership of the Hungarian Communist Party was Jewish. This does not mean that all Jews were on the side of the Communist Party (many Jews of liberal orientation simply emigrated), but nevertheless.

B.B. Wasn’t this state of affairs (remember that there were many Jews in the Communist Party of Poland) some kind of “joke” of Stalin, a play on anti-Semitism, because the final personnel decisions stayed behind him. Rakosi could not lead anything without the Kremlin.

A.S. Everywhere the situation was different. In Hungary he had no one to rely on except the Jew Rakosi. He was forced to rely on a group of people closely connected with Moscow, with the Comintern, who had undergone appropriate training.

B.B. Why couldn’t Raik be made the main one?

A.S. Trotskyist Raik? Who was expelled from the Communist Party as a Trotskyist in the 1930s? A Trotskyist is worse than a Jew! Raik was not completely controlled by Moscow and was never in Moscow until the 1940s. Kadar, by the way, also headed a team that worked within the country and was not closely connected with Moscow. In 1951, Kadar was arrested and served three years in prison on charges of dissolving the underground Communist Party in 1944. In 1956, he was reinstated in the Politburo, and things went from there. In July 1956, Mikoyan comes to Budapest and talks with Kadar: “You don’t have to answer this unpleasant question, but I want to know under what circumstances the Communist Party was dissolved.” In Moscow, Kadar was not trusted for a long time. at first he was generally opposed to the restoration of Kadar in the Politburo. In April 1956, when the question was raised about reinstating Kadar, Andropov wrote a telegram to Moscow: “RESTORING KADAR TO THE POLITIBURO WOULD BE A CONCEPT TO THE RIGHT-WING AND DEMAGOGICAL ELEMENTS.” But then there was no choice; I had to work with whoever was there. Kadar, as the head of the party, is generally a creature of the Yugoslavs. Because Comrade Tito, during negotiations on Brijuni from November 2 to 3, 1956 with Khrushchev and Malenkov about the use military force and on who to put at the head of the country, he insisted on Kadar - Moscow wanted Munich, but agreed.

B.B. We are finishing the conversation, I’ll try to sum it up. There are probably many more interesting and important things that could be discussed, but a lot has to be left behind the scenes. It is important that we are now talking about a certain segment time in Hungary (1940-1980s) is immersed in context. Conducting conversations today about the situation of victims of repression, we understand in what political, social, economic space people lived, against what background the repressions of the Rakosi era took place, in what conditions they took place after 1956 and later. We already understand a little why the Kadar regime was established in Hungary, quite liberal compared to its neighbors - there is a trace of the country’s history in the first half of the 20th century. Alexander Sergeevich, thank you very much for the conversation. I think our readers and viewers will be grateful to you.

Interview with Alexander Stykalin :

Those who left their mark on history are remembered for centuries. Undoubtedly, all these prominent figures were ambitious, self-confident and purposeful.

At the same time, they are people just like the rest of us - with hidden fears, childhood grievances and a desire to express themselves to the world. So let's remember once again what they were like...

1. Vladimir Lenin (04/22/1870-01/21/1924)

Country Russia
Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) is a Russian revolutionary who dreamed of leading the country to communism. His childhood was spent in Simbirsk. When Vladimir was 17 years old, his older brother was hanged, proving his involvement in a conspiracy against Tsar Alexander III. This made a painful impression on the child and influenced the formation of his worldview. After finishing school, Ulyanov (Vladimir’s real name) studied abroad, and upon his return founded the Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Proletariat. He created the printed publication Iskra, from the pages of which emanated communist ideology.

I was in exile. After the revolution in February 1917, he returned to his homeland, where he headed the new government. He is the founder of the Red Army, replacing War Communism with the less onerous New Economic Policy.

2. Adolf Hitler (04/20/1889 – 04/30/1945)

Country: Germany
Adolf Hitler is perhaps one of the most terrible people in history. He was an Austrian by origin; his direct ancestors were peasants. Only his father managed to become an official.

During the First World War he was in the service. He was distinguished by frailty and sycophancy, but masterfully mastered the art of oratory. IN post-war period worked as a “spy,” infiltrating gang formations of communists and leftist forces.

He was a participant in a meeting of the German Workers' Party, where he became imbued with the ideas of National Socialism and identified the main enemy - the Jews. The way of thinking of one person subsequently led to millions of casualties and broken destinies of people of various nationalities.

In 1933, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. After the death of the German President, he was given the powers of government, which, as we know, ended in terrible, bloody events for the whole world. It is believed that Hitler committed suicide, although there is a theory about the death of his double.

3. Joseph Stalin (12/18/1878-03/05/1953)

Country: USSR
Joseph Stalin is a cult figure for an entire era, surrounded by an aura of mystery. 30 variants of pseudonyms, changing the date of birth, hiding one’s noble roots - these are not all the secrets of the great leader.

During his power, a different opinion was equated to a crime - many executions were carried out, the camps were overcrowded. On the other hand, the totalitarian leadership made it possible to raise the USSR from ruins in record time civil war and win the Great Patriotic War.

4. Mahatma Gandhi (October 2, 1869 – January 30, 1948)

Country: India
Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most outstanding people, a peacemaker who fought aggression with the help of his “aimed” words. He became the father of the entire nation, the “pious soul” of the whole world, and ardently defended human rights.

His personality and ideology were formed under the influence of the Mahabharata, books and correspondence with Leo Tolstoy, and the philosophical teachings of G.D. Thoreau. He fought against caste inequality, organized the movement “Independence of India from Britain,” and tried to resolve the conflict that arose between Muslims and Hindus living in Pakistan using non-violent principles.

5. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (05/19/1881 – 11/10/1938)

Country: Türkiye
Mustafa Kemal is considered the father of Turkey, where his personality is honored, remembered and monuments are erected in almost every city. He organized secret societies to combat corruption among military officials, was the initiator liberation movement against the Anglo-Greek intervention, and also abolished the sultanate, introducing a republican form of government.

Kemal is a supporter of moderate dictatorship. He tried to reform the state along the lines of Western countries. Thanks to his efforts, women's rights were equalized with men's.

6. Konrad Adenauer (01/05/1876 – 04/19/1967)

Country: West Germany (Germany)
Konrad Adenauer is the first Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, a ruler with positive features in the new history of Germany. During the Nazis' rise to power, Adenauer resigned from his positions due to his personal dislike of Hitler. Since he was an opponent of the regime, he was arrested by the Gestapo. After the end of World War II, he headed the Christian Democratic Union and was Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to 1963.

An energetic and strong-willed politician, a supporter of an authoritarian management style with the simultaneous presence of tough and flexible leadership methods, he was able to raise the country from ruins. The pace of development of the Federal Republic of Germany was far ahead of the GDR. Konrad Adenauer was loved by the people and had the nickname “Der Alte” (“The Old Man” or “The Master”).

7. Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (11/30/1874 – 01/24/1965)

Country: UK
One of the most outstanding people Great Britain, a long-liver in the political arena. Churchill twice served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

His activities were not limited to politics. Winston, the son of the Duke of Marlborough, was a versatile personality: a historian, artist and writer (awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature). Churchill was the first to be promoted honorary citizen USA.

8. Charles de Gaulle (11/22/1890 – 11/9/1970)

Country: France
Famous French politician, first president of the Fifth Republic. He headed the anti-Hitler coalition, and in 1944-1946 he was the head of the provisional government of France. On his initiative, in 1958, a new constitution, which expanded the rights of the president.

Special meaning has exit from NATO and French-Soviet cooperation. Supported the creation of our own nuclear forces.

9. Mikhail Gorbachev (03/02/1931)

Country: USSR
Mikhail Gorbachev - the first and only president of the USSR, political figure, who wanted to make the country more open and democratic. The restructuring of the state, which Mikhail Gorbachev began, became a difficult period for all people post-Soviet space. The collapse of the USSR, the decline of the economy, unemployment - all this is well remembered by people who lived at the end of the 20th century.

The undoubted success of Mikhail Sergeevich was his meetings with Ronald Reagan and the first steps towards ending cold war from the USA. In 1991, Gorbachev announced that he was leaving the post of President, transferring powers to Boris Yeltsin.

10. Vladimir Putin (07.10.1952)

Country Russia
Vladimir Putin is an outstanding politician of the Russian Federation, successor to Boris Yeltsin. Today, Vladimir Putin leads the country for the third time. Coming from a simple working-class family, he was in the service of the KGB. He worked in the state security agencies of Dresden in the GDR. In 1991, he returned to his homeland, St. Petersburg, where he headed the external relations committee of the mayor's office.

Putin managed to stabilize the situation in Chechnya and adhere to social priorities during the economic crisis of 2008. The President's third term has ended active actions on the return of Crimea to Russia due to the refusal of the population to obey the new illegitimate government in Ukraine. This situation was not accepted by the heads of European countries.

The editors of the site recommend that you read the article about the highest paid professions in our country.
Subscribe to our channel in Yandex.Zen

The history of the Russian people is part of the world, so the importance of studying it is clear to everyone. A person who knows the history of his people can adequately navigate the modern space and competently respond to emerging difficulties. Russian historians help us study the science that tells us about the affairs of past centuries. Let us dwell in more detail on those who played a significant role in scientific research in this area.

The first chronicles

While there was no writing, historical knowledge were passed on by word of mouth. And different peoples had such legends.

When writing appeared, events began to be recorded in chronicles. Experts believe that the first sources date back to the 10th-11th centuries. Older writings have not survived.

The first surviving chronicle was written by the monk Nikon of the Kiev-Pechora Monastery. The most complete work created by Nestor is “The Tale of Bygone Years” (1113).

Later, the “Chronograph” appeared, compiled by the monk Philotheus at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. The document provides an overview world history and the role of Moscow in particular and Russia in general is outlined.

Of course, history is not just a statement of events; science is faced with the task of comprehending and explaining historical turns.

The emergence of history as a science: Vasily Tatishchev

The formation of historical science in Russia began in the 18th century. At this time, the Russian people tried to understand themselves and their place in the world.

He is considered to be the first historian of Russia. He is an outstanding thinker and politician of those years. The years of his life are 1686-1750. Tatishchev was very a gifted person, and he managed to make a successful career under Peter I. After participating in the Northern War, Tatishchev was engaged in state affairs. At the same time he collected historical chronicles and put them in order. After his death, a 5-volume work was published, on which Tatishchev worked throughout his life - “Russian History”.

In his work, Tatishchev established the cause-and-effect relationships of the events that took place, relying on chronicles. The thinker is rightfully considered the founder of Russian history.

Mikhail Shcherbatov

Russian historian Mikhail Shcherbatov also lived in the 18th century and was a member of the Russian Academy.

Shcherbatov was born into a wealthy noble family. This man had encyclopedic knowledge. He created “Russian History from Ancient Times.”

Scientists of later eras criticize Shcherbatov's research, accusing him of some haste in writing and gaps in knowledge. Indeed, Shcherbatov began studying history even when he began to work on writing it.

Shcherbatov's story was not in demand among his contemporaries. Catherine II considered him completely devoid of talent.

Nikolay Karamzin

Among Russian historians, Karamzin occupies a leading place. The writer's interest in science began in 1790. Alexander I appointed him historiographer.

Karamzin worked throughout his life to create the “History of the Russian State.” This book introduced history to a wide range of readers. Since Karamzin was more of a writer than a historian, in his work he worked on the beauty of expressions.

The main idea of ​​Karamzin's History was reliance on autocracy. The historian concluded that only with the strong power of the monarch does the country prosper, and when it weakens does it decline.

Konstantin Aksakov

Among the outstanding historians of Russia and famous Slavophiles, the man born in 1817 takes his place of honor. His works promoted the idea of ​​opposing paths historical development Russia and the West.

Aksakov was positive about returning to traditional Russian roots. All his activities called for precisely this - a return to the roots. Aksakov himself grew a beard and wore a blouse and a murmolka. He criticized Western fashion.

Aksakov did not leave a single scientific work, but his numerous articles became a significant contribution to Russian history. He is also known as the author of philological works. He preached freedom of speech. He believed that the ruler should hear the opinion of the people, but is not obliged to accept it. On the other hand, the people do not need to interfere in government affairs, but need to focus on their own moral ideals and spiritual development.

Nikolay Kostomarov

Another figure among Russian historians who worked in the 19th century. He was a friend of Taras Shevchenko and knew Nikolai Chernyshevsky. Worked as a professor in Kiev University. He published “Russian history in the biographies of its figures” in several volumes.

The significance of Kostomarov’s work in Russian historiography is enormous. He promoted the idea of ​​people's history. Kostomarov studied the spiritual development of Russians, this idea was supported by scientists of later eras.

A circle has formed around Kostomarov public figures who romanticized the idea of ​​nationality. According to the report, all members of the circle were arrested and punished.

Sergey Soloviev

One of the most famous historians of Russia of the 19th century. Professor, and later rector of Moscow University. For 30 years he worked on “The History of Russia”. This outstanding work became the pride of not only the scientist himself, but also the historical science of Russia.

All collected material was studied by Solovyov with sufficient completeness necessary for scientific work. In his work, he drew the reader's attention to the internal content of the historical vector. The uniqueness of Russian history, according to the scientist, lay in some delay in development - compared to the West.

Soloviev himself admitted his ardent Slavophilism, which cooled down a little when he studied the historical development of the country. The historian advocated the reasonable abolition of serfdom and the reform of the bourgeois system.

In his scientific work, Solovyov supported the reforms of Peter I, thereby moving away from the ideas of the Slavophiles. Over the years, Solovyov's views moved from liberal to conservative. At the end of his life, the historian supported an enlightened monarchy.

Vasily Klyuchevsky

Continuing the list of historians of Russia, it should be said about (1841-1911) he worked as a professor at Moscow University. He was considered a talented lecturer. Many students attended his lectures.

Klyuchevsky was interested in the basics of folk life, studied folklore, wrote down proverbs and sayings. The historian is the author of a course of lectures that has received worldwide recognition.

Klyuchevsky studied the essence difficult relationships peasants and landowners, devoted this thought great importance. Klyuchevsky’s ideas were accompanied by criticism, however, the historian did not enter into controversy on these topics. He said that he was expressing his Subjective opinion on many issues.

On the pages of the “Course” Klyuchevsky gave many brilliant characteristics and key points Russian history.

Sergey Platonov

Speaking about the great historians of Russia, it is worth remembering Sergei Platonov (1860-1933). He was an academician and university lecturer.

Platonov developed the ideas of Sergei Solovyov about the opposition to generic and state principles in the development of Russia. He saw the cause of modern misfortunes in the rise to power of the noble class.

Sergei Platonov gained fame thanks to his published lectures and history textbook. October Revolution he assessed from a negative point of view.

For hiding important historical documents from Stalin, Platonov was arrested along with friends who had anti-Marxist views.

Nowadays

If speak about modern historians Russia, we can name the following figures:

• Artemy Artsikhovsky - professor at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, author of works on ancient Russian history, founder of the Novgorod archaeological expedition.
• Stepan Veselovsky, a student of Klyuchevsky, returned from exile in 1933, worked as a professor and lecturer at Moscow State University, and studied anthroponymy.
• Viktor Danilov - took part in the Patriotic War, studied the history of the Russian peasantry, and was awarded the Solovyov Gold Medal for his outstanding contribution to the study of history.
• Nikolai Druzhinin - outstanding Soviet historian, studied Decembrist movement, post-reform village, history of peasant farms.
• Boris Rybakov - historian and archaeologist of the 20th century, studied the culture and life of the Slavs, and was involved in excavations.
• Ruslan Skrynnikov - professor at St. Petersburg University, specialist in the history of the 16th-17th centuries, researched the oprichnina and the politics of Ivan the Terrible.
• Mikhail Tikhomirov - academician of Moscow University, studied the history of Russia, researched numerous social and economic topics.
• Lev Cherepnin - soviet stories, academician of Moscow University, studied Russian Middle Ages, created his own school and made major contribution into national history.
• Seraphim Yushkov is a professor at Moscow State University and Leningrad State University, a historian of state and law, participated in discussions on Kievan Rus, and studied its system.

So, we looked at the most famous historians of Russia who devoted a significant part of their lives to science.

OUTSTANDING HISTORIANS OF THE XX – EARLY XXI CENTURIES

1. Artsikhovsky Artemy Vladimirovich(1902-1978 ), one of the fundamentals. studied archeology dr. Rus' in the USSR. Prof., founder and head. Department of Archeology and History Faculty of Moscow State University (since 1939), creator and Chief Editor and. "Soviet Archeology" (since 1957). Author of works on the antiquities of the Vyatichi of the 11th-14th centuries, on miniatures of the Middle Ages. lives, as well as works and training courses in archeology and history of ancient Russian. culture. Creator of the Novgorod archaeological expedition (since 1932), during the course of the b. birch bark documents were discovered and a methodology for studying cultural history was developed. Old Russian layer cities, developed chronological reconstruction of life in city estates and neighborhoods. In 1951 b. The first birch bark was found. literacy is one of the most noticeable things. archaeological discoveries of the 20th century. Studying these charters and publishing their texts b. main life's work A.

2. Bakhrushin Sergey Vladimirovich (1882-1950 ) - outstanding Russian. historian, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Known from the family. Moscow merchants and philanthropists. Student V.O. Klyuchevsky. B. arrest. on the “Platonov Case” (1929-1931). In 1933 he was returned from exile to Moscow; prof. Moscow State University. They will notice. lecturer (A.A. Zimin, V.B. Kobrin studied with him). Since 1937 he worked at the Institute of History (hereinafter - II) of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Works on the history of Dr. Rusi, Rus. state of the XV-XVII centuries, colonization of Siberia (history of its indigenous population during the colonial period, connections between Russia and the countries of the East through Siberia), source studies, historiography, history. geography.

3. Veselovsky, Stepan Borisovich (1877-1952 ). Genus. in the ancient nobles. family. Issue historian. Academician. Creator of the foundation. works, document publications of reference books on the era of feudalism. Rev. to Moscow un-those. Studying the era of Kievan Rus and social-ec. relations of the XIV-XVI centuries, V. was the first to introduce into history. science data genealogy, place names- science of geographical names, continued development anthroponymy- science of personal names. During the period of Stalin’s praise of Ivan the Terrible as a progressive figure who “correctly understood the interests and needs of his people,” V. made a scientific. and civic feat, based on scrupulous research, painting a reliable picture of life in the 16th century. and arriving at diametrically opposed conclusions. For this he was deprived of the opportunity to publish his works. Studying history through the destinies of people, V. prepared a lot of biographical and genealogical materials that are independent. meaning. In the 40-50s, when the impersonal, so-called "scientific" language, V. tried to write emotionally and captivatingly, leaving vivid portraits of medieval figures

4.Volobuev Pavel Vasilievich(1923-1997) - large owl. historian, academician OK. Faculty of History of Moscow State University. Since 1955 he worked at the Institute of Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences (in 1969-1974 - director of the Institute). At the end of the 60s. V. is known as the leader of the “new direction” in history. science. From ser. In the 70s he was subjected to administrative repression - removed from his post as director of the USSR Institute of Science. President of the Association for the History of the First World War (since 1993). Headed by Scientific. Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences "History of revolutions in Russia". Basic works according to study economic, political and social prerequisites for the history and historiography of the October Revolution.

Op..: Monopoly capitalism in Russia and its features, M., 1956; Economic policy of the Provisional Government, M., 1962; The proletariat and bourgeoisie of Russia in 1917, M., 1964, etc.

5. Grekov Boris Dmitrievich (1882-1953 ) – emp. historian, academician Arr. received. in Warsaw and Moscow. un-tah. Student V.O. Klyuchevsky. In 1929 issue. the first general work on history by Dr. Rus - “The Tale of Bygone Years about Vladimir’s campaign against Korsun.” From 1937 onwards 15 years old Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Founder of the so-called "national" school of historians, which replaced the "Pokrovsky school". In 1939 the first edition of his major classic was published. work “Kievan Rus”, in which he substantiated his theory that the Slavs moved directly from a communal system to a feudal system, bypassing the slave system. 1946 – foundation. work “Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the 17th century.” The publications of documents are associated with his name: “Russian Truth”, “Chronicle of Livonia”, “Serf Manufactory in Russia”, etc. The author is St. 350 works.

6.Viktor Petrovich Danilov (1925-2004 ) – emp. historian, doctor of historical sciences, prof. School of the Second World War. OK. Faculty of History of Moscow State University. Head department of agriculture history of owls society at the Institute of History of the USSR, USSR Academy of Sciences (1987-1992), director. groups on agricultural history. transformations in Russia of the twentieth century IRI RAS (1992-2004). His whole life is an example of devotion to one topic - the history of the Russian peasantry. Main directions of scientific research communications work with studying social-ec. stories villages of the 20s, its demography, the role of the peasant community and cooperation in the pre-revolutionary period. and post-revolutionary Russia, carrying out collectivization of peasants. farms. After 1991, the center of his interests was the history of the peasant revolution in Russia 1902-1922, political. moods and movements in the post-revolutionary period. village, tragedy of the owls. villages, connected. with collectivization and dispossession (1927-1939). For a series of monographs and docs. publications on Russian history. villages of owls period in 2004 awarded the Gold Medal. S. M. Solovyov (for his great contribution to the study of history). Lately there has been a lot of attention. paid attention to the publication of documents from previously inaccessible archives. Author of St. 250 works.

Op.: Creation of material and technical prerequisites for the collectivization of agriculture in the USSR. M., 1957; Soviet pre-collective farm village: population, land use, economy. M., 1977 (translated in 1988 in English); Community and collectivization in Russia. Tokyo, 1977 (in Japanese); Documents testify. From the history of the village on the eve and during collectivization of 1927-1932. M., 1989 (ed. and comp.); Soviet village through the eyes of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD. 1918-1939. Doc. and mother in 4 volumes (M., 1998 – 2003) (ed. and comp.); The tragedy of the Soviet village. Collectivization and dispossession. Doc. and mother in 5 volumes 1927-1939 (M., 1999-2004) (ed. and comp.), etc.

7. Druzhinin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1886-1986)- emp. owls historian, academician OK. Faculty of History, Moscow. un-ta. Prof. Moscow State University. First monograph ""Landowners' Journal". 1858-1860" (20s) - the conclusion that this publication is important. History of fortress. farms recent years his existence. In the 1920-1930s. occupation history of the Decembrist movement (monograph “Decembrist Nikita Muravyov” - 1933). Articles about P. I. Pestel, S. P. Trubetskoy, Z. G. Chernyshev, I. D. Yakushkin, the program of the Northern Society. Slave. at the Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The author is a problem-methodologist. articles “On the periodization of the history of capitalist relations in Russia”, “The conflict between productive forces and feudal relations on the eve of the reform of 1861”. " State peasants and reformP. D. Kiseleva"(2 volumes - 1946-1958) - the first fundamental study devoted to this category of the rural population of Russia). He revealed the connection between Kiselyov’s reform and the peasant reform of 1861 (he considered Kiselyov’s reform a “dress rehearsal” for the liberation of the peasants). The first volume of the study is devoted to the economic and political prerequisites of the reform, the second - to the implementation of the foundations of the reform and characterization of its consequences. In 1958 he began researching the post-reform village. The result is a monograph. " Russian village at a turning point. 1861-1880"(1978). Carefully analyzed. group and region. post-reform development differences. villages, main trends emerging as a result of the peasant reform. households He headed the Commission on the History of Rural Farming and the Peasantry, publishing a multi-volume book. doc. series “Peasant Movement in Russia”.

8.Zimin Alexander Alexandrovich (1920-1980 ) – emp. owls historian, doctor of historical sciences, prof. Student S.V. Bakhrushin. Z. belong to numerous. foundation. research in politics history of Rus' XV-XVI centuries, according to the history of Russian. society thoughts, according to ancient Russian lit-re. Encyclopedic knowledge in the field of history. ist-s on the basis of feudalism. Historian b. a “panorama of the history of Russia” was created, covering the period from 1425 to 1598 and presented. in 6 books: “The Knight at the Crossroads”, “Russia at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries”, “Russia on the threshold of the New Age”, “Reforms of Ivan the Terrible”, “Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible”, “On the eve of terrible upheavals”. Z. is the editor and compiler of many collections of documents. Author of St. 400 works.

9. Kovalchenko Ivan Dmitrievich (1923-1995)- emp. scientist, academician. School of the Second World War. OK. Faculty of History of Moscow State University. Head department source studies of the USSR Institute of History at Moscow State University; Ch. ed. magazine "History of the USSR"; chairman Commission on the Application of Mathematical Methods and Computers in History. research at the Department of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The author is the foundation. works on social-ec. Russian history of the 19th century, historical methodology. knowledge (“Methods of historical research” - 1987; 2003), founder of the fatherland. schools of quantitative (mathematical) history. For the monograph “Russian serf peasantry in the first half of the 19th century.” (1967) (in which he used a computer to process a huge array of sources he had collected) b. awarded the prize. acad. B.D. Grekova.

10. Mavrodin Vladimir Vasilievich (1908-1987 ) – large owl. historian, doctor of historical sciences, prof. LSU. Scientific tr. on the history of Kievan Rus, the formation of the RCH. Research ist. ist-ov, relative. To Battle on the Ice, the Battle of Kulikovo, the struggle for the banks of the Neva, carried out by Ivan the Terrible and Peter I, the suppression of the rebellion. E. Pugacheva, etc.

11. Milov Leonid Vasilievich (1929–2007). Issue Russian historian. Academician. Head department Moscow State University. Student I.D. Kovalchenko. The author is the foundation. work in the field of social-ec. history of Russia from ancient times to the beginning. twentieth century, source study of father history, quantitative history, founder of a major scientific. schools at the history department of Moscow State University. In recent decades, he has led the fatherland. school of agricultural historians. His works created an original concept of Russian. history that explains the key features of Russia. ist. process influenced by natural-geographical factors. In the field of scientific interests also included: ancient Russian law, the origin of fortresses. rights in Russia, etc. Main tr. – “The Great Russian Plowman and the Peculiarities of the Russian Historical Process,” in which he analyzed in detail the working conditions of the farmer in the Russian climate. With assistant A statistical analysis of price dynamics in different regions of Russia showed that a single market emerged in Russia only towards the end of the 19th century.

12. Nechkina Militsa Vasilievna(1901-1985) – large owl. historian, academician Basic scientific Interests: Russian history. roar movements and history history. sciences: "A.S. Griboedov and the Decembrists" (1947), 2-volume "Decembrist Movement" (1955), "Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. History of Life and Creativity" (1974), "Meeting of Two Generations" (1980), etc. She supervised the creation of the first generalizing work on the Russian language. historiography "Essays on the history of historical science of the USSR" (vol. 2-5) and a facsimile edition of the monuments of the Free Rus. printing houses "Bell", "Polar Star", "Voices from Russia", etc. Under her editorship. A number of documents have been released. publ. - multi-volume “The Decembrist Revolt”, etc.

13. Pokrovsky Mikhail Nikolaevich (1868 - 1932 ) - owl. historian, academician, Marxist organizer. ist. science in the country. OK. historical-philologist. faculty Mosk. un-ta. Student V.O. Klyuchevsky. From 1918 – deputy. People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR. He directed the Communist Academy, the Institute of Red Professorships, the Society of Marxist Historians, the magazine “Red Archive”, etc. The creator of the so-called. "Pokrovsky School". Based on history. ideas – “the concept of trading capital”. Author of textbooks allowance “Russian history in the most concise outline” (1920) - a presentation of history from the perspective. class struggle (including “found” the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in ancient Novgorod). He pursued a rude, straightforward policy towards the old professors. At the end of the 30s. The “MNP school” was repressed.

14.Boris Alexandrovich Romaanov(1889-1957) – emp. historian. OK. St. Petersburg. univ. Student A.E. Presnyakova. Prof. LSU. He was arrested in the Platonov Case. Scientific interests: Kievan Rus, economic and diplomatic history of Russia in the Far East at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. Tr.: “Russia in Manchuria”, “Essays on the diplomatic history of the Russian-Japanese War”, “People and customs of Ancient Rus'”, publication of “Russian Pravda” with comments. The book “People and Morals of Ancient Rus'” is a kind of collective portrait of the people and pictures of the morals of pre-Mongol Rus' based on a scrupulous analysis of the history of the 11th – early centuries. XIII centuries In 1949 the book was subjected to unfounded criticism. R. b. dismissed from Leningrad State University.

15. Rybakov Boris Alexandrovich(1908-2001) – emp. Russian archaeologist and historian, academician. Prof. Moscow State University. The creator of a major scientific school Basic tr. on archeology, history, culture of the Slavs, etc. Rus'. Many of R.'s works contained a foundation. conclusions about life, everyday life and the level of socio-economic and cultural development of the population of Eastern Europe. So, for example, in the book “The Craft of Ancient Rus'” (1948) he managed to trace the genesis and stages of development of crafts. production among the Eastern Slavs from the 6th to 15th centuries, and so reveal dozens of crafts. industries. In monograph. “Dr. Rus. Tales. Epics. Chronicles" (1963) drew parallels between epic stories and Russian. chronicles. Researched in detail. Old Russian chronicle, subjected to careful analysis the original news of the 18th century historian V. N. Tatishchevai came to the conclusion that they rely on reliable ancient Russian sources. I thoroughly studied “The Tale of Igor’s Host” and “The Tale of Daniil the Sharper.” Hypothesis, acc. in which the author of “The Tale of P. Igor” was the Kiev boyar Pyotr Borislavich. In the book. “Kievan Rus and the Russian principalities in the 12th-13th centuries” (1982) dated the beginning of the history of the Slavs to the 15th century BC. e. Conducted large-scale excavations in Moscow, Veliky Novgorod, Zvenigorod, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl Russky, Belgorod Kiev, Tmutarakan, Putivl, Alexandrov and many others. etc.

Op.:“Antiquities of Chernigov” (1949); “The first centuries of Russian history” (1964); “Russian applied art of the X-XIII centuries” (1971); “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign and His Contemporaries” (1971); “Russian chroniclers and the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”” (1972); “Russian maps of Muscovy in the 15th and early 16th centuries” (1974); “Herodotus Scythia. Historical and geographical analysis" (1979); “The Paganism of the Ancient Slavs” (1981); “Strigolniki. Russian humanists of the 14th century" (1993); edited by B.A.R. turned out to be a very large scientific work. works: the first six volumes of “History of the USSR from Ancient Times”, multi-volume ones - “Code of Archaeological Sources”, “Archaeology of the USSR”, “Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”, etc.

16. Samsonov Alexander Mikhailovich (1908-1992) - large owl. historian, academician, specialist in history of the Second World War. OK. ist. Faculty of Leningrad State University. WWII participant. Since 1948 scientific. co-workers Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1961–70, director of the publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now the Nauka publishing house). Under his editorship. a series of documents was published. collections “The Second World War in Documents and Memoirs.” Ch. editor of Historical Notes. Basic slave. on the history of the Second World War 1941-1945.

Op.: The Great Battle of Moscow. 1941‒1942, M., 1958; Battle of Stalingrad, 2nd ed., M., 1968; From the Volga to the Baltic. 1942‒1945, 2nd ed., M., 1973.

17. Skrynnikov Ruslan Grigorievich– Doctor of Historical Sciences, prof. St. Petersburg un-ta. Student B.A. Romanova. One of himself. known specialists in history Russia XVI and XVII centuries. “The Beginning of the Oprichnina” (1966), “Oprichnina Terror” (1969) - revised the concept of political. development of Russia in the 16th century, proves that the oprichnina was never an integral policy with uniform principles. At the first stage, the oprichnina struck a blow at the princely nobility, but it maintained this direction for only a year. In 1567-1572. Grozny subjected Novgorod to terror. the nobility, the top of the administrative bureaucracy, the townspeople, that is, those layers that consist. support of the monarchy. S. research foreign policy and social politics, economics Iv. Gr., development of Siberia. Monograph “The Reign of Terror” (1992), “The Tragedy of Novgorod” (1994), “The Collapse of the Kingdom” (1995) and “ Great Sovereign Ioann Vasilyevich the Terrible” (1997, 2 vols.) is the pinnacle of the scientist’s research. He established the exact chronology and circumstances of the conquest of Siberia (“Ermak’s Siberian Expedition”), and defended against attempts to declare the outstanding political monument a falsification. journalism correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky (“Paradoxes of Edward Keenan”), clarified many of the circumstances of the enslavement of the peasantry in the XVI - early. XVII centuries, described complexly. the nature of the relationship between the church and the state in Rus' (“Saints and authorities”). Interest in the era of Troubles—“Tsar Boris and Dmitry the Pretender” (1997). He is the author of more than 50 monographs and books, hundreds of articles, and many others. of them translated. in the USA, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan and China.

18. Tarle Evgeniy Viktorovich(1874-1955) – emp. historian, academician Genus. in the merchant's compartment family. Arrest. on the Platonov Case. In the beginning. 30s restored as prof. Naib. popular owl historian after the publication of the “trilogy” - “Napoleon” (1936), “Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia” (1937), “Talleyrand” (1939). He was not interested in schemes, but in people and events. Prof. Moscow State University and the Institute of International. relations Nak. and during the Second World War he wrote works about the great. generals and naval commanders: M.I. Kutuzov, F.F. Ushakov, P.S. Nakhimov and others. Published in 1941-43. two-volume tr. " Crimean War"(revealed the diplomatic history of the war, its course and results, the state of the Russian army).

19. Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich (1893-1965) – eminent. historian, prof. Moscow State University, academician. OK. history-phil. faculty Moscow univ. Slave. at the Institute of History, Institute of Slavic Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, chairman of the Archaeographic Commission. Basic tr. on the history of Russia and the peoples of the USSR, as well as the history of Byzantium, Serbia, pan-Slavic problems, source studies, archeography, historiography. The generalizing work “Russia in the 16th century” (1962) is the foundation. contribution to history geography. T.'s monographs and articles reflect the themes of social-ec., political. and cultural history of ancient Russian cities, peoples of movements in Russia 11-17 centuries, history of state. feudal institutions Russia, zemstvo councils of the 16th-17th centuries, administrative office work. One of the presenters. specialists in the region paleography and species. In work, dedicated. Russian truth, decided in a new way is important. problems associated with the creation of the monument. T. is credited with reviving the publication of the “Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles” series; he published “The Council Code of 1649”, “The Righteous Standard” and others. B. the leader of the Soviet. archaeographers to find and describe unknown manuscripts; under his hand. The creation of a consolidated catalog of unique manuscripts stored in the USSR has begun. Manuscripts, collected. personally T., b. transferred by him to the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Op.: Russian culture X-XVIII centuries, M., 1968; Historical connections of Russia with the Slavic countries and Byzantium, M., 1969; Russian state XV-XVII centuries, M., 1973; Ancient Rus', M., 1975; Research about Russian Truth. M.-L., 1941; Old Russian cities. M., 1946, 1956; Medieval Moscow in the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1957; Source study of the history of the USSR from ancient times to the end of the 18th century, M., 1962; Medieval Russia on international routes(XIV-XV centuries), M., 1966, etc.

20. Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich(1936) – emp. Russian historian, prof. Leningrad State University (St. Petersburg State University). Genus. in the family of a Kuban Cossack - commander of the Red Army, repressed in 1937. Student V.V. Mavrodina. Leading specialist in I-II Russian. Middle Ages. Created a school of historians Dr. Rus'. His concept of Kievan Rus withstood accusations of “anti-Marxism”, “bourgeoisism”, “oblivion of formational and class approaches” during the Soviet years. It was formulated by F. in a number of scientific studies. monograph - "Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-economic history" (1974), "Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history" (1980), "Kievan Rus. Essays on Russian historiography" (1990), "Ancient Rus'" (1995), "Slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs" (1996), etc.

21. Cherepnin Lev Vladimirovich (1905-1977 ) – emp. owls historian, academician OK. Moscow univ. Student S.V. Bakhrushina, D.M. Petrushevsky and others. The largest specialist in I-II Russian. Middle Ages. B. was repressed in the “Platonov Case”. From ser. 30s slave. at Moscow State University, Moscow. state Historical and Archival Institute, Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Foundation. work on the history of the Russian centralized state government - “Russian feudal archives of the XIV-XV centuries” in 2 volumes (1948-1951). His slave. according to problem source studies (“Novgorod birch bark documents as historical source" - 1969), social-ec. and social-political-i-ii of Russia ("Formation of the Russian centralized state in the XIV-XVII centuries." - 1978, "Zemsky Sobors"), VIDam ("Russian paleography"), publ. ist. ist. ("Spiritual and contractual charters of great and appanage princes XIV- 16th century) allowed him to create his own school and make a significant contribution to the national historical science.

22.Yushkov Serafim Vladimirovich (1888-1952 ) - owl. historian of state and law, academician. OK. legal and historical philologist. f-you Petersburg. University (1912). Prof. Moscow State University and Leningrad State University. Basic works on state and law: “Feudal relations and Kievan Rus” (1924), “Socio-political system and law Kyiv State" (M., 1928), "Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus" (1939), the textbook "History of State and Law of the USSR" (1950). He made a special contribution to the study of Russian Pravda. Participant in all discussions on the history of Kievan Rus Rus' in the 20-50s. Opponent of Academician B.D. Grekov. Created the theoretical basis for the science of the history of state and law, even its very name belongs to the scientist. Introduced the concept of estate-representative monarchy into Russian historical and legal science.

Gennady BORDUGOV

I. PROLOGUE

HISTORIANS IN THE ERA OF WARS, REVOLUTIONS AND THE SOVIET SYSTEM................................................... 17

Vladimir ESAKOV

The idea of ​​science in A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky................................................... ........................................... 17

Soviet power and the scientific community.................................................. .............................................. 19

Moscow – the center of academic science.................................................... ........................................................ .29

New ideological pressure......................................................... ........................................................ ....... 34

Historians in the “Thaw” and the “New Direction”.................................................. ..................................... 40

“PROFESSIONALS OF HISTORY” IN THE ERA OF PUBLICITY: 1985–1991................................... 55

Irina CHECHEL

Self-determination of the historical corporation in relation to
to the previous tradition......................................................... ........................................................ ............. 56

Self-determination of historical science 1985–1991. in relation to
to historical journalism......................................................... ........................................................ ............ 69

Historiographical culture of the domestic community of historians 1985–2010.................................. 95

II. TRANSIT: A SOCIOLOGICAL PORTRAIT OF A COMMUNITY

Gennady BORDUGOV, Sergey SHCHERBINA

1. Analysis of general demographic parameters.................................................... .................................. 122

2. Age and territorial characteristics.................................................... ........................... 127

3. Professional interests.................................................... ........................................................ ........ 141

4. Change of priorities in scientific and popular science publications.................................................... .. 167

5. Portrait of a Russian historian.................................................... ........................................................ ...... 171

III. NEW FORMS OF ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTISTS

COMMUNITIES OF “NATIONAL HISTORIANS”................................................................. ....................... 177

Dmitry LYUKSHIN

National histories in the domestic historiographic tradition.................................................... 177

Communities of “national historians”: life after the sovereign parade.................................... 180

Time for a rethink... cancelled.................................................... ........................................... 183

“National historians” about the period of “gathering Russian lands”
at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries: searching for a place in Russian historiography.................................................. ....... 185

RUSSIAN HISTORICAL MAGAZINES: THREE MODELS
KNOWLEDGE AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.................................................................... .................................... 191

Natalia POTAPOVA

The magazine as a heritage: the experience of reconstructing academic journals.................................................... 195

Magazine as a business: principles of marketing as an example
"New Literary Review"................................................... ........................................................ .215

Magazine as a media project: strategic principles
using the example of the magazine “Rodina”................................................. ........................................................ ............ 220

HISTORIANS IN AN INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNITY.................................................................... .......... 234

Anton SVESHNIKOV, Boris STEPANOV

“Soviet means excellent”: interdisciplinarity in one single country........... 236

The Romance of Interdisciplinarity: “Odysseus” and “THESIS”............................................ ............... 239

“The Wild 90s”: knowledge about the past between disciplines and institutions.................................... 242

Academic periodicals between the 1990s and 2000s............................................ ........................... 247

IV. BEFORE THE CHALLENGES OF THE TURN OF THE CENTURIES

THE EVE OF A NEW ORTHODOXY. HISTORIAN AND AUTHORITY
IN PERESTROIKA AND POST-SOVIET RUSSIA.................................................... ........................... 261

Vasily MOLODIAKOV

New orthodoxy – 1: “socialism” versus “Stalinism”.................................................... .................... 262

New orthodoxy – 2: “democracy” against “Sovietism”.................................................... .................... 266

New orthodoxy – 3: “Putinists” versus “morons” and “liberals”................................................. .271

THE HISTORICAL COMMUNITY AND THE CREATORS OF SENSATIONS.................................................... .......... 281

Nikita DEDKOV

On the ruins of the empire................................................... ........................................................ ........................... 282

Background........................................................ ........................................................ ................................... 283

Far from the noise of the city.................................................... ........................................................ ............ 286

Success................................................. ........................................................ ............................................... 288

What about historians?........................................................ ........................................................ ........................... 289

BETWEEN COMPETITION AND PATERNALISM: “GRANT”
HISTORIAN IN MODERN RUSSIA.................................................... ............................................... 301

Igor NARSKY, Yulia KHMELEVSKAYA

“Grant space”................................................................ ........................................................ ............... 302

“Rules for applying the rules”: the realities of grant policy.................................................... ............... 306

Sketch for a portrait of a modern grantee-historian.................................................... ............. 310

Postscript......................................................... ........................................................ .................................... 317

MORES OF MODERN RUSSIAN HISTORIANS: BACKGROUND
TO THE FALL AND HOPE FOR REVIVAL.................................................... ........................... 321

Boris SOKOLOV

Social roots of morals......................................................... ........................................................ ............... 322

Writing dissertations for other people: shameful or not shameful?.................................................. .............. 323

Scientific unanimity in post-Soviet style and the struggle for power in historical science.................................... 325

State fight against “falsifications that are detrimental to Russia”
and morals of historians................................................... ........................................................ ................................... 329

Epistemological roots of current morals Russian historians.............................................. 331

Is there a community of Russian historians................................................... ................................... 334

The need for a charter for historians................................................................. ........................................................ .. 338

V. Russian scientific and historical community
at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 21st centuries: publications and research
1940s – 2010s

Joseph BELENKY

1. Institutions. Communications. Traditions................................................. .................................... 344

2. Scientific schools in domestic historical science.................................................... ................. 371

3. Collections in honor and memory of domestic historians.................................................... .......... 389

4. Memoirs, diaries and letters domestic historians........................................................... 445

5. Biobibliography of historians.................................................... ........................................... 460

6. Biographical and biobibliographical dictionaries of historians.................................................... ....... 468

INDEX OF NAMES................................................... ........................................................ ........................... 479