The XXIII Congress of the CPSU set great tasks for all social scientists, including historians. In 1966-1970, a large group of them working in research institutions and higher educational institutions of the country conducted intensive development of topical issues, trying to connect their research as closely as possible with the practice of communist construction in the USSR, with the tasks of the current stage of the ideological struggle.

The period 1966-1970 was marked by major events in the life of the country, which significantly affected the development of historical science. One of these events is the 50th anniversary of Soviet power. In connection with this anniversary, historians have published dozens of books, collective works and monographs. For the most part, these were large-scale works of a consolidated, final nature. Among them are vols. VII and VIII of the multi-volume "History of the USSR", covering the period from 1917 to 1932, vol. III (in two parts) of the multi-volume "History of the CPSU", two-volume "History of the Ukrainian SSR", "History of the Kazakh SSR" (the era of Socialism), vol. VII of the "History of the Armenian people", covering the period from 1927 to 1941, vol. II " History of the Moldavian people "(from 1917 to the present day), " History of Moscow during the Great Patriotic War and the post-war period "(1941-1945)," History of Minsk", volume IV" History of Siberia " (Siberia during the construction of socialism).

Naturally, the greatest attention was paid to the preparation of books on the history of the October Revolution. In connection with the anniversary, two volumes of the monograph of Academician I. I. Mints "The History of the Great October", the work of Leningrad historians "The October Armed Uprising" in 2 volumes, the second edition of the book "The History of the Great October Socialist Revolution", the monograph of G. N. Golikov "The Revolution that Opened a New Era", monographs on the establishment of the Soviet authorities in Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, Central Asia, and the Volga Region1 . A notable phenomenon was the publication of the history of national-state construction in the USSR, a number of generalizing works on the history of the Soviet working class and peasantry. 2 Of course, it was not limited to the creation of only consolidated works on the history of Soviet society, although the 50th anniversary of Soviet power gave the greatest impetus to the development of this particular field of historical science. Hundreds of books were published

1 "The victory of Soviet Power in Ukraine". Moscow, 1967; "The Victory of Soviet Power in Belarus". Minsk. 1967; "The victory of Soviet Power in Central Asia and Kazakhstan". Tashkent, 1967; "The Struggle for Soviet Power in the Baltic States", Moscow, 1967; "October in the Volga region". Saratov, 1967.

2 "History of National-State construction in the USSR in 1917-1967", Vols. I-II. Moscow, 1967-1968; " Essays on the history of the Soviet working Class (1917-1965)", Moscow, 1966; " A brief history of the Soviet Working Class. 1917-1967". Moscow, 1968; S. P. Trapeznikov. Leninism and the agrarian-peasant question. Vols. I-II. Moscow, 1967; "The Soviet peasantry is an active participant in the struggle for socialism and Communism", Moscow, 1969.

page 3

They are also published on the pre-revolutionary history of our country, as well as on problems of the history of other countries and continents.

An important milestone in the life of Soviet historians, as well as all representatives of the social sciences, was the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On measures for the further development of social sciences and increasing their role in communist construction". Extensive discussions held by academic institutions after the publication of this decree made it possible to identify the most important areas of activity of Soviet historians, to outline ways of organizational restructuring of a number of institutions. In order to implement the resolution, their research plans included collective works and monographs on the most important and topical problems of historical science.

A major event of the period under review was the International Conference of Communist and Workers ' Parties in 1969. Its results have forced historians to pay attention to many new or poorly developed problems in the history of the international workers ' and communist movement, the national liberation struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The need to study the international significance of the experience of building socialism and communism in the U.S.S.R., the correlation between national and international elements in the construction of socialism, and the role of the working class at the present stage of the world revolutionary process has been revealed with renewed vigor.

Much attention was also paid to the study of the struggle of the Marxist-Leninist parties against right and left revisionism. With their research in this area, Soviet historians make a significant contribution to the acute ideological struggle waged on the international stage by the Communist and workers ' parties. "Revisionism," L. I. Brezhnev said in his speech at the International Conference of Communist and Workers 'Parties," in theory paves the way for opportunist practice, which directly harms the anti-imperialist struggle. After all, revisionism is a departure from proletarian class positions, it is a substitution of various kinds of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois concepts of the old and modernist type for Marxism-Leninism. " 3 Many discussions, conferences, and symposiums on issues directly arising from the results of the International Conference of Communist and Workers ' Parties were planned and held by the country's historical institutions.

The preparation and celebration of the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth had a huge impact on the work of all Soviet historians. Hundreds of works have been published that reveal the influence of V. I. Lenin on history, show the international character of Leninism, and highlight the successes achieved in the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community. Among the works published for the anniversary, we should mention books describing the role of V. I. Lenin in the victory of October, in socialist construction, in the development of the principles of Soviet foreign policy. Works on V. I. Lenin as a historian are also of interest4 . All historical institutions and

3 L. I. Brezhnev. For strengthening the unity of Communists, for a new rise in the anti-imperialist struggle, Moscow, 1969, p. 32.

4 "V. I. Lenin in October and in the first years of Soviet power", Moscow, 1969; "V. Y. Lenin on the historical experience of the Great October", Moscow, 1970; E. B. Genkina. State activity of V. I. Lenin in 1921-1922. Moscow, 1969; G. P. Makarova. Implementation of Lenin's national policy in the first years of Soviet power (1917-1920). Moscow, 1969; " Lenin's foreign Policy of the Soviet Country (1917-1924)". Moscow, 1970; "Lenin's Doctrine of the Union of the working class and the peasantry". Moscow, 1969; " V. I. Lenin on the social structure and political system capitalist Russia", Moscow 1970; E. N. Gorodetsky, V. I. Lenin-the founder of Soviet Historical Science, Moscow 1970; "V. I. Lenin and Military History", Moscow 1970; "V. I. Lenin and the National Liberation Movement", Moscow 1970, etc.

page 4

universities of the country held scientific sessions and symposiums dedicated to this glorious anniversary, including the All-Union scientific session "V. I. Lenin-the founder of Soviet Historical Science", the anniversary session of the History Department of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Ulyanovsk, and others. Major events of the period under review include the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx (1968) and the 150th anniversary of the birth of F. Marx. Engels (1970). Historians have prepared a number of works for these dates, conducted scientific sessions and conferences that reveal various aspects of the activity of the founders of Marxism.

In 1966-1970, major, generalizing works were published on various problems of national and world history. The Soviet Historical Encyclopedia continued to be published (volumes 9-12 were published in the years under review), all volumes of the pre-Soviet series and volumes VII and VIII of the Soviet series of the multi-volume History of the USSR were published, the three-volume History of Byzantium was published for the first time in Marxist historiography, the three-volume History of Italy and two-volume generalizing works were published on the history of France and Germany, work has been completed on the same books on the history of Romania and Hungary. Work was carried out on the history of historical science in the USSR.

A significant event in the life of Soviet historians was the XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences, held in Moscow on August 16-23, 1970. Representatives of all historical institutions of the country participated in the preparation for it and in the work of the congress itself. A detailed analysis of the scientific results of this forum has only just begun. In the meantime, it can be stated that the congress demonstrated the superiority of Marxist thought. More than 300 speeches were made by Soviet historians who participated in all its sections and commissions. Soviet historians also actively participated in the V International Congress on Economic History, held in Leningrad in August 1970.

The purpose of this article is not to analyze all aspects of the work of Soviet historians in 1966-1970, because it is hardly possible to even mention all the most important works published during these years. Below we try to outline only some of the main milestones, trends, and trends that determined the work of Soviet historians in the period under review.

One of the characteristic features of the development of our historiography in recent years has been the growing interest in the methodology and philosophy of history. The accumulation of a huge number of facts that expand and deepen our understanding of the historical process, the emergence of new trends in the development of the modern world, which often have roots in the distant and relatively close past, encourage historians to try to rethink many well-known propositions and truths. In addition, bourgeois historiography has recently flooded the book market with books and articles of a philosophical and historical nature, which raise questions about the relationship between history and other social sciences, again attempt to define what history is, and so on. Naturally, Soviet historians do not leave such works unanswered, focusing on theoretical problems. Finally, the increased interest in the methodology of history is to some extent a reaction to some underestimation of these problems in the past. All this, taken together, explains why in recent years, in reports at many conferences and symposia, in monographs and collective works, in articles and brochures, questions of the theory of the historical process are increasingly raised.

Soviet scientists actively participated in the methodology section of the XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences. As shown it

page 5

Thus, bourgeois historians once again bring to the fore the problem of the illusory nature of the historical past, the impossibility of reducing it to natural, deterministic factors. A number of their reports at the congress stated that history differs from other social sciences in that it lacks methodology. The vast amount of historical facts, the combination of important and numerous accidental phenomena, serves as a starting point for many bourgeois authors to reject Marxist determinism and accuse Marxists of fatalizing the historical process. The transformation of historical facts through the prism of the historian's own views, his decisive role in the selection of these facts, is used by bourgeois scientists to confirm the subjectivist understanding of history and deny its laws. True, not all historians of the bourgeois world hold such views. In the extremely diverse range of theories and concepts that exist in bourgeois science, one can see the most diverse points of view. Many bourgeois historians completely reject determinism in the Marxist sense of the word, some recognize only external causal connections of phenomena, others, on the contrary, abstract the studied phenomena from all mediated connections, taking them in a "pure" form, and so on. Nevertheless, we can speak of a clear revival in bourgeois science of the old positivist ideas and views (modeled on M. Weber and others), which practically deprive history of a truly scientific content, its logical basis.

The efforts of Soviet historians aimed at re-confirming the regularity of the historical process by drawing on new materials, and finding out among the many different facts and events those that are leading, determining the course of social development, represent an important contribution to the development of the theory of the historical process. However, in a number of cases, a somewhat simplified approach to the analysis of historical phenomena has emerged, without taking into account the fact that patterns in history make their way through many very different, sometimes extremely contradictory phenomena; that history often develops in a zigzag pattern, with deviations from the main line that determines the process.

In recent years, bourgeois ideologues and revisionists have intensified their attacks on the theory of socio-economic formations. Soviet historians firmly adhere to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the periodization of the development of human society. In the course of separate discussions, some historians put forward the thesis that the approximate similarity of the level of development of the productive forces under feudalism and the slave-owning system serves as an argument against the fundamental difference between these two modes of production. This obscures the true socio-economic factors that distinguish these two formations.

The multivariance of historical development is obvious. Every day of our lives shows that the course of events depends on many different factors and causes, often quite random. Here is the correlation, coupling of external and internal events at one time or another, and the influence of individuals on the historical process, and much more. Underestimating these factors deprives the historian of the opportunity to understand and reveal all the springs, shades and aspects of the historical process, to determine why events developed in this way and not otherwise. But one should always see, of course, the watershed that separates the Marxist understanding of this question from the bourgeois one. For many Western historians, as it became clear at the XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences, as well as in a number of works by bourgeois authors, the multivariance of the historical process serves as an additional argument against determinism.-

page 6

minism, against the Marxist understanding of history as a natural logical process. Alternativeness is not an antithesis to determinism, but a confirmation of the fact that through all the complexities and zigzags, through accidents and digressions, the main defining lines and trends of development make their way - this is the position of Marxist historians in their disputes with bourgeois and revisionist opponents.

In recent years, the words "structure", "structuralism", and "structural analysis"have often appeared on the pages of many books and magazines. In the discussion that unfolded in a number of organs of our press, various considerations were expressed regarding the use of structural methods.5 There is a qualitative difference between Soviet and bourgeois historians ' understanding of structural methods. First, for many Western historians, structuralism (Soviet literature rightly refers to structural methods of analysis) is a kind of methodology that represents an alternative to Marxist determinism. It is true that a number of bourgeois authors recognize causal and consequential connections between events and phenomena. However, for many of them, the structural method, often passed off as universal, involves considering phenomena in a static state, and not in development. Secondly, bourgeois authors, reducing the structural method to the study of all, so to speak, internal connections of the phenomenon, exaggerate random, secondary factors to the detriment of the main, determining lines, which, consequently, again leads to obscuring the laws of the historical process. Of course, one cannot deny the fact that the proponents of structural methods in our country use the terminology used in the West as well. However, Soviet historians usually use the structural method as one of the ways to analyze historical phenomena. For them, this method, applied on the basis of Marxist methodology, is by no means universal. It allows you to analyze some phenomena in a horizontal section, but not in a static state, but taking into account their development, with the establishment of their cause and effect relationships. However, it would be a mistake to exaggerate the significance of this method, and even more so to pass it off as something new and advanced. Just as unjustified is the deliberate complexity of the approach to the problems of methodology. The use of superscientific phraseology, which complicates the clarification of questions, hardly contributes to a better understanding of the historical process.

In general, the Soviet historians ' desire for philosophical generalizations and the use of a broader arsenal of tools and methods for analyzing phenomena seems to be a fruitful factor stimulating the development of science.

We should also mention the use of mathematical methods and electronic computers in historical research. The initiative in this matter was once made in our country. In recent years, well-known experience has been accumulated, primarily by historians from Moscow, Novosibirsk, and Estonia. A group of Soviet historians led by I. D. Kovalchenko presented a special report on the Soviet experience at the XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences. We must admit, however, that research in this area is now being conducted in the West at a faster pace than in our country. At the same time, it should be taken into account that the use of mathematics and computers has limited limits. Even the majority of bourgeois historians pre --

5 See, for example: M. A. Barg. Structural analysis in historical research. Voprosy filosofii, 1964, No. 10; M. A. Barg, E. B. Chernyak. Structure and development of class-antagonistic formations. Voprosy filosofii, 1967, No. 6; E. M. Shtaerman. To the problem of structural analysis in history. "Questions of history", 1968, N 6; A. Danilov. To the question of the methodology of historical science. "Kommunist", 1969, N 5.

page 7

the congress warned against the idea of unlimited possibilities of applying mathematics in historical science. Mathematical methods and computers can be widely used where there are massive quantitative indicators, mainly in the socio-economic sphere.

Soviet historians ' attention was also drawn to the question of the correlation between methodology and concrete historical research, and whether it is better and more useful for the development of science-to develop separate problems of methodology or to deepen theoretical research in the development of concrete historical topics. Of course, both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages and the right to exist. However, the second way seems more fruitful to us. A separate development of methodological issues creates a certain watershed, a barrier between "pure" theorists and practical historians, and leads to the" middle ground " of concrete historical works. Underestimation, and sometimes even fear of the development of theory, lead to the appearance of factual works that are almost completely devoid of independent conclusions of a conceptual nature. This was also reflected in the fact that historians often avoided synthesizing broad themes that required serious theoretical justification. Now the matter is being corrected in this regard. It is obvious that any serious historical research must involve the formulation of important theoretical questions. The task of improving the theoretical level of specific research is always one of the most important. Along this path, many methodological problems can be solved, which, of course, does not exclude the preparation of special works on the problems of the philosophy of history and the theory of the historical process.

In close connection with the problems of methodology, there is a question of studying and criticizing bourgeois theories and concepts by Soviet historians. The development of science in recent years and the XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences have shown that significant shifts and changes are taking place in bourgeois historiography, which naturally attract the attention of Soviet scientists. In 1966-1970. In our country, a number of serious works have been published that analyze the state of affairs in various areas of world historical science .6 In these studies, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, which are widespread primarily in the United States and Germany, are reasoned and thoroughly criticized, the activities of "Russian" centers existing in these countries are analyzed, and their close connection with monopolistic capital is shown.

However, our researchers still take little account of the differentiation that exists in bourgeois science in their works. As a rule, it is stated that there are historians of the right, reactionary and moderately liberal trends; it is noted that historians who stand on moderately liberal positions recognize a number of objective factors underlying world development, and avoid anti-Soviet falsifications and fabrications. But a thorough analysis of the bourgeois - objectivist theories of the historical process has not yet been sufficiently carried out. Perhaps that is why we have few works that reveal the activities of French and Italian historians, who are dominated by just moderately liberal tendencies. In general, bourgeois historiography is characterized by a significant evolution of its theories and methods. Their main features are an eclectic combination of heterogeneous concepts, attempts to bring together subjectivist and non-subjectivist concepts.

6 "Historiography of the New Time of the countries of Europe and America", Moscow, 1967; "Historiography of the new and modern history of the countries of Europe and America", Moscow, 1968; V. I. Salov. Sovremennaya zapadnogermanskaya burzhuaznaya istoriografiya [Modern West German Bourgeois Historiography], Moscow, 1968. Istoriya i politika [History and Politics], Moscow, 1969.

page 8

a materialist understanding of history, to use some of the conclusions and achievements of Marxism to make their theories more acceptable, meet the current level of scientific development, and ultimately more adapted to the struggle against Marxism, against the materialist understanding and explanation of history.

It is also necessary to mention the widespread use of various revisionist theories in recent times. They manifest themselves, as a rule, in the study of problems of recent history and are characterized by the desire to "update"," correct " Marxism, to portray it as largely outdated for modern conditions. The denial of the leading role of the working class in the revolutionary events of the twentieth century, the desire to dissolve it in the common front of the struggle of various parties and social groups, the belittling and distortion of the activities of the communist parties and the Comintern, the apologetics of the policy of social democracy, the attempt to put the international policy of the imperialist blocs and modern ideologues of revisionism.

As you know, recent years have also been characterized by a revival and significant activation of leftist theories. This is reflected, in particular, in the tendency of a number of authors in France, Italy, Germany, and other capitalist countries to clearly exaggerate the significance of rebelliousness and violence at the latest stage of the revolutionary and national liberation struggle, to exalt the peasant and petty-bourgeois actions inordinately, contrasting their revolutionary character with the" reformism " of the modern working class, and to give a false idea of the revolutionary processes in in the Third World countries, again contrasting the revolutionism of this world with the" calmness " of the bourgeois Western European working-class movement.

* * *

The years 1966-1970 were extremely fruitful in terms of studying the history of Soviet society. Such major milestones in the country's life as the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth affected, first of all, the development of the history of the Soviet Union. At the same time, some general trends were quite clearly revealed. During this period, there was a correct correlation between collective works and monographs. The appearance of a large number of consolidated generalizing works did not prevent the publication of dozens of serious and interesting monographic studies. The research field has expanded both in terms of issues and geography. Many works were published on the history of October, on the problems of NEP, on the history of industrialization and collectivization, on issues of cultural and national construction, on the history of the Second World War and the modern period. Practically in each of the Union and autonomous republics, in all major regional centers, consolidated works dedicated to the 50th anniversary of Soviet power have been created, numerous monographs and collective works on individual issues have appeared.

The successful publication of documents and materials on the history of Soviet society, which began in the past, was continued during the period under review. And here, too, some new points have appeared. Thus, for the first time, a complete stock publication of the most important documents about the October Revolution was carried out .7 Work has begun on a huge documentary publication on the history of industrialism-

7 "Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee". Documents and materials. Tt. 1-3. Moscow, 1966-1967.

page 9

in the USSR as a whole 8 . The publication of documents revealing the progress of industrialization in certain regions of the country has been launched .9 This opens up additional opportunities to work on creating serious research covering the history of industrialization in our country. Previously, this area was dominated, so to speak, by the national economic, production aspect, while theoretical issues, as a rule, were part of the circle of interests of economists. It seems that the time has come to prepare a fundamental study on the history of industrialization in a comprehensive plan, combining social, economic, political and cultural aspects .10 A similar series of documents on the history of agricultural collectivization is also being published.

Further, we can point to an increase in interest in analyzing the social structure of Soviet society. The special scientific session on this issue held in Minsk in 1969 served as a significant impetus for increasing attention to this problem. In connection with the analysis of the social structure of our society, concrete sociological research methods have become increasingly used. The use of these methods was most effective in studying the Soviet countryside, certain aspects of cultural construction and national relations.

If we talk about success in developing individual problems, we should first mention the history of the Great October Socialist Revolution. In addition to the fundamental, generalizing works already mentioned above, it is necessary to note here the development of a number of aspects of the problem that were previously poorly studied by historians. First of all, this is the history of the Soviets. The newly published works have significantly clarified our understanding of the activities and role of the Soviets on the eve of the October events and during the revolution itself .11 A number of works appeared on the experience of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the army. A notable feature of the period under review was the more in-depth development of the history of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes and parties in Russia. The researchers analyze the origins and main characteristics of the politics of the Cadets, Mensheviks, and Social Revolutionaries during the October and Civil War period12 . But still, work in this direction has only just begun. As yet, there are no serious studies that analyze the social composition, policies, and tactics of the Cadets and Octobrists, Social Revolutionaries, and Mensheviks in the period 1905 - 1917. There were no scientific symposia or discussions on this topic.

In 1966-1970, several books were published, revealing the international significance of the-

8 "Industrialization of the USSR. 1926-1928" Documents and materials. Moscow, 1969; "Industrialization of the USSR. 1929-1932". Documents and materials. Moscow, 1970.

9 "Industrial development of the Central Industrial District", Vol. 1. 1926-1932. Moscow, 1969; " Industrialization of the North-Western district during the first five-year Plan (1929-1932)", vol. 1967; " Industry and the working class of the Ukrainian SSR in the period of building the foundation of the socialist economy (1926-1932)" Kiev, 1966; " History of industrialization of Western Siberia (1926-1941)". Novosibirsk. 1967; "History of industrialization of the Kazakh SSR", vol. 1. 1926-1932; vol. II. 1933-June 1941. Alma-Ata, 1967; "History of industrialization of the Georgian SSR. 1926-1941", Tbilisi. 1968, et al.

10 Recently, the first generalizing work appeared: "The historical experience of the CPSU in implementing Lenin's program of socialist industrialization of the USSR", Moscow, 1969.

11 A.M. Andreev. Soviets of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies in 1917, Moscow, 1967; E. G. Gimpelson. Soviets in the Years of Foreign Intervention and Civil War, Moscow, 1968; B. M. Morozov. Party and Soviets in the October Revolution, Moscow, 1966; O. N. Moiseeva. Soviets of Peasant Deputies in 1917, Moscow, 1967.

12 L. M. Spirin. Classes and Parties in the Civil War in Russia (1917-1920). Moscow, 1968; K. V. Gusev, Kh. L. Yeritsyan. From Compromise to Counterrevolution (Essays on the History of political bankruptcy and the Demise of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party), Moscow, 1968; N. V. Ruban. The October Revolution and the Collapse of Menshevism (March 1917-1918). Moscow, 1968.

page 10

native environment during the October Revolution 13 . I would just like to note that if the politics of England, France and the United States in the pre-October period are covered quite fully, then the situation is worse with the study of the position of these countries in the period after October. The attention of researchers was mainly focused on the analysis of US policy and its role in unleashing anti-Soviet intervention, and the policies of England and France were clearly insufficiently studied. Meanwhile, it is known that the ruling circles of these countries were no less responsible for organizing the intervention than the United States. In addition, the balance of power in Britain and France, the attitude of various parties and groups towards Soviet Russia, and the position of various figures, which was far from identical, were very poorly analyzed. As a result, the historical process is somewhat simplified, schematized, and impoverished.

Speaking about the study of the period 1917-1920, we should point out one point. The essence and characteristics of the policy of war communism are quite well known. They are comprehensively analyzed in the works of V. I. Lenin, in the decisions of the party and the government. However, historians have not yet done much to create consolidated works on this problem14 , as well as to reveal the specifics of the implementation of this policy in different regions of the country based on concrete historical material.

Some changes have taken place in the study of the new economic policy. A number of works have been published that raise important questions about its essence and significance .15 This problem has not been considered in a comprehensive plan for a long time. Meanwhile, the study of NEP, in addition to being, so to speak, purely scientific, is of great practical and political importance both for our country and for other socialist countries. The problems of multiculturalism, the role of commodity-money relations, the use of elements of state capitalism by the Soviet government-all these issues attract the attention of historians. The journal Voprosy Istorii CPSU held an interesting discussion on topical issues of NEP in 1967-1968. Those specialists who study them have now reached the point where, based on numerous concrete studies, it is possible to start preparing a fundamental work on the history of NEP.

In the field of studying the history of the Soviet working class and peasantry, the years 1966-1970 were also very fruitful. Large-scale works have appeared that present problems and aspects of the history of the Soviet working class that are common to the whole country16 . It is extremely important to publish a large number of books on the history of the worker

13 V. V. Lebedev. International situation of Russia on the eve of the October Revolution, Moscow, 1967; V. S. Vasyukov. Prehistory of intervention. M. 1968; M. S. Voslenekiy. Secret relations of the USA and Germany (1917-1918). Moscow, 1968; R. S. Ganelin. Russia and the USA. 1914-1917. Moscow, 1970; L. A. Gvishiani. Sovetskaya Rossiya i SShA. 1917-1920 gg. m. 1970.

14 We can mention the recently published book on this problem: D. A. Kovalenko. Oboronnaya promyshlennost Sovetskoy Rossii v 1918-1920 gg. M. 1970.

15 Yu. A. Polyakov. Transition to NEP and the Soviet peasantry, Moscow, 1967; L. F. Morozov. From bourgeois cooperation to Socialist cooperation, Moscow, 1969; V. Ya. Levin. Socio-economic structures in the USSR during the transition from capitalism to socialism (state capitalism and private capitalism). Moscow, 1967; R. H. Aminova. Agrarian transformations in Uzbekistan during the transition of the Soviet state to NEP. Tashkent, 1965, and others.

16 p. S. Khromov. F. E. Dzerzhinskiy v glavom metallopromyshlennosti [Dzerzhinskiy at the head of the metal industry], Moscow, 1966; V. Z. Drobizhev. General Staff of Socialist Industry (Essays on the history of the Supreme Economic Council. 1917-1932). Moscow, 1966; A. F. Khavin. At the Helm of Industry, Moscow, 1968; V. E. Poletaev. Workers of Moscow at the Final Stage of Building Socialism in the USSR (1945-1958). Moscow, 1968; S. L. Senyavsky. The growth of the working class of the USSR (1951-1965). Moscow, 1966; L. S. Rogachevskaya. Movement for Communist Labor: History and Problems, Moscow, 1968; L. S. Gaponenko. The working class of Russia in 1917 M. 1970; E. E. Beylina. Working Class and new forms of Competition, Moscow, 1970.

page 11

classes in the union and autonomous republics 17 . A similar picture is observed in the field of studying the history of the Soviet peasantry and agrarian relations. In recent years, a significant contribution has been made to the development of this topic .18 A large number of studies were published on the history of the cultural revolution and cultural construction in the USSR 19 . However, a number of works are still too factual, monotonous, and stereotyped. There are few works of a problematic nature. The history of the socialist national economy of the U.S.S.R. is not sufficiently linked to international aspects, to the development of other countries of the socialist community. Historians of Soviet society still rarely cooperate with economists and philosophers.

In 1966-1970, the problems of the modern history of European and American countries were very actively studied. Perhaps the greatest attention of historians has been focused on issues of the labor movement and international relations, which is reflected both in general books and in individual studies.

One of the most intensively studied problems was the history of the Comintern, its role in the development of the international workers ' and communist movement, and the significance of individual congresses. This interest was not accidental: it should be borne in mind that bourgeois and revisionist historiographies tried in every possible way to distort the role of the Comintern, to downplay its significance, and to focus attention on mistakes in its activities. In the published works, at the sessions dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Comintern and the 25th anniversary of its Seventh Congress, some aspects of the Comintern's activities were analyzed, and the enormous influence it had on the development of the international workers ' and revolutionary movement in the 20s and 30s, on the struggle against fascism and the war was shown 20 . Closely related to the problems of the history of the Comintern is the question of the role of communists and social-democracy in the international labour movement. A large number of works on the history of the international labour movement were published, including the fundamental work on the history of the Second International .21
An important task of Soviet historians remains the study of international relations.-

17 See, for example: "History of the working class of the Ukrainian SSR". Kiev, 1968 (in Ukrainian); "History of the working Class of Soviet Turkmenistan (1917-1965)". Ashgabat. 1969; "History of the Soviet working class of Kyrgyzstan". Frunze. 1966; V. A. Kadeikin. The workers of Siberia in the struggle for Soviet power and the implementation of the first socialist transformations. Kemerovo, 1966, and others.

18 P. N. Per shin. The Agrarian Revolution in Russia. Books I-II. Moscow, 1966; V. M. Selunekaya. The Working Class and October in the Countryside, Moscow, 1968; Yu. S. Kukushkin. Rural Soviets and class Struggle in the countryside (1921-1932). Moscow, 1968; I. E. Zelenin. Zernovye sovkhozy SSSR (1933-1941 gg.) [Grain state farms of the USSR (1933-1941)]. Sovkhozy SSSR (1941-1950 gg.) [State Farms of the USSR (1941-1950 gg.)]. Moscow, 1969; Yu. V. Harutyunyan. Opyt sotsiologicheskogo izucheniya sela [Experience of the sociological study of the village]. Moscow, 1968;"Istoriya krestyanstva UKSSR". Vols. 1-2. Kiev, 1967 (in Ukrainian); " The Transfigured Steppe. Agriculture of Kazakhstan for 50 years of Soviet power". Alma-Ata, 1967; "Development of socialist agriculture in Georgia". Tbilisi. 1968 (in Georgian); " Essays on the history of collective farm construction in Tajikistan (1917-1965)". Dushanbe, 1968, etc.

19 " The Soviet Intelligentsia (History of formation and growth. 1917-1965)". Moscow, 1968; S. A. Fedyukin. Soviet Power and Bourgeois Specialists, Moscow, 1965; V. A. Kumanev. Socialism and National Literacy, Moscow, 1967.

20 "Revolutionary traditions of the Comintern", Moscow 1970; "Comintern and the East", Moscow 1969; "For the unity of all revolutionary and democratic forces", Moscow 1966.

21 "History of the Second International". Tt. I-II. M. 1965-1966; M. I. Mikhailov. History of the Union of Communists, Moscow, 1968; "Marx and Modernity", Moscow, 1968; A.V. Efimov, USA. Puti razvitiya kapitalizma (doimperialisticheskaya epokha) [Ways of development of capitalism (pre-imperialist era)]. Proletariat against monopolies. Essays on the problems of class struggle and general democratic movements in the USA, Moscow, 1967; "Main stages of development of the world revolutionary Process after October", Moscow, 1968; B. R. Lopukhov. Fascism and the labor movement in Italy. 1919-1929 Moscow, 1968; N. F. Mochulsky. The labor movement in England on the eve of the Second World War (1934-1939). Moscow, 1968; D. G. Najafov. The people of the USA against war and fascism (1933-1939). Moscow, 1969; N. V. Sivachev. Political struggle in the USA in the mid-30s of the XX century M. 1966; H. Garcia. Spain of the XX century, Moscow, 1967.

page 12

native of social democracy. We still do not have, in particular, studies on the history of the Socialist International, on the ideology and practice of the British Labour Party, the Scandinavian Social Democrats, and other social democratic parties and organizations. In modern conditions, when the problem of contacts between communists and social Democrats is on the agenda in many countries, the study of the international experience of the labor movement of the 20s and 30s is very relevant.

Soviet historians have written a number of studies on the history of the domestic and foreign policies of large capitalist countries, mainly in the 1920s and 30s. But now the 40s, 50s, and 60s are already becoming the property of history, and the task of historians is to analyze the policy of the imperialist bourgeoisie after the Second World War. The international aspects of this policy are somewhat better researched. The internal situation of the United States, Germany, especially England, Italy and many other countries is clearly insufficiently studied. The recent political biographies of W. Churchill, D. Kennedy, and D. Lloyd George [22], of course, touch on some fundamental issues of the domestic policy of the United States and England, but they do not solve the problem as a whole. So far, international economists have been very active in this regard. The social and especially political problems of many countries in Europe and North America are still out of the field of view of historians.

A huge amount of literature is published in all countries on foreign policy and international relations. Intensive work in this area was also carried out in our country. The publication of diplomatic documents, which began in 1957, has now been chronologically brought up to 1932 (in 1966-1970, volumes XI - XV were published). Collections of documents on disarmament issues, as well as on the history of World War II and relations between the USSR and other countries have been published .23 Reflecting the growing interest in methodology, Soviet international historians have prepared a number of studies on the theory and sociology of international relations. 24 On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Soviet power, the first volume of a generalizing work on the history of Soviet foreign policy was published, 25 written "on the basis of a large number of documents (including many previously unpublished ones). International historians have also written the History of Diplomacy (vol. III), the three-volume History of International Relations and Foreign Policy of the USSR, and others .26
Of the individual periods in the history of foreign policy, much attention was still paid to the years 1917-1924 .27 This period was "lucky" because it is directly connected with the history of the October Revolution.

22 A. A. Gromyko, 1036 Days of President Kennedy, Moscow, 1968; V. G. Trukhanovsky. Winston Churchill, Moscow, 1968; K. B. Vinogradov. Lloyd-George, Moscow, 1970.

23 "50 Years of the USSR's struggle for Disarmament", Moscow, 1967; "Soviet-German relations from the negotiations in Brest-Litovsk to the signing of the Rapallo Treaty". Collection of Documents, Vol. I, Moscow, 1968.

24 See, for example: "Sociological problems of International relations", Moscow, 1970; G. A. Arbatov. Ideological Struggle in Modern International Relations, Moscow 1970, et al.

25 "History of foreign policy of the USSR. 1917-1966". Part 1. (1917-1945). Moscow, 1966.

26 "History of Diplomacy", Vol. III. Ed. 2-E. M. 1965; "History of International relations and foreign policy of the USSR. 1917-1967", Ed. 2-E. M. 1967.

27 See, for example: M. I. Trush. Foreign policy activity of V. I. Lenin. 1921 - 1923. Day by Day, Moscow, 1967; " Leninist Foreign Policy of the Soviet Country. 1917-1924". Moscow, 1969; D. V. Oznobishin. From Brest to Yuryev, Moscow, 1968; G. P. Nikolnikov. An outstanding victory of Lenin's strategy. Brestsky mir: from conclusion to Rupture, Moscow, 1968; A. N. Kheifets. Soviet Diplomacy and the Peoples of the East (1921-1927). Moscow, 1968; V. A. Shishkin. The Soviet State and the Countries of the West in 1917-1923. "Essays on the history of the formation of economic relations", Moscow, 1969; I. M. Gorokhov, A. N. Zamyatin, I. N. Zemskov. Chicherin-diplomat of the Lenin school, Moscow, 1968.

page 13

revolution and V. I. Lenin's development of the basic principles of Soviet foreign policy and international relations. However, an analysis of the literature, as well as a number of recent discussions, has shown that there is still a need to create synthesizing works devoted to this period. There is a need to look at this time in general terms, to analyze the then fundamental problems of the development of international relations, the balance of forces in the world. This is all the more important if we take into account that bourgeois historiography is very active in covering these issues. Historians are faced with the task of creating works of a general nature, showing that in 1917-1918 there were two trends in international relations, between which there was a struggle for the reconstruction of the world. The second problem related to the period 1917-1924 is the correlation between foreign policy and world revolution. This problem was then in the center of attention, and it is extremely relevant today. In international relations, researchers are constantly confronted with questions of the correlation between the world revolutionary process and peaceful coexistence. It is important to continue studying Lenin's views on these issues and their concrete implementation in 1917-1924.

In 1966-1970, the history of foreign policy and international relations in the period 1925-1939 and during the Second World War was also developed. Fewer books and essays28 are devoted to these periods than to the previous one. This is probably due to the fact that in the first years of Soviet power, the foundations of Soviet foreign policy were laid, and therefore this period is of increased interest. It is impossible not to dwell on another important problem of the period of the 20-30s - the history of the Small and Balkan Entente. In many works published in both capitalist and some socialist countries, great attention is paid to it, the general problems of the Small Entente, the relations within this Union, and the role of individual states in it are touched upon. Unfortunately, this topic is still poorly developed in our literature.

Soviet historians were still interested in questions related to the struggle of the Soviet Union for the creation of a collective security system in the 1930s, the development of which is important for understanding a number of aspects of today's foreign policy. Some works published abroad incorrectly portray the circumstances of the struggle for collective security and the role of individual political figures of that time. An important task of our researchers is to reconstruct the true history of the Soviet Union's struggle for collective security.

Much attention is paid by Soviet historians to the development of problems of international relations after the Second World War. In 1966-1970, much was done to reveal the history of the German question .29 Disarmament research continued 30 .

28 A. E. Ioffe. Foreign policy of the Soviet Union. 1928-1932 Moscow, 1966; L. V. Pozdeyeva. Anglo-American relations during the Second World War. 1941-1945 Moscow, 1969; V. L. Israelyan, L. N. Kutakov. Diplomacy of aggressors. German-Italian-Japanese fascist bloc. Istoriya ego vozrozhdeniya i krakha [History of its emergence and collapse]. Moscow, 1967; S. V. Nikonov, A. Germany and England from Locarno to Lausanne, M. 1966; G. N. Sevostyanov. Diplomatic History of the Pacific War, Moscow, 1969.

29 P. A. Nikolaev. The policy of the Soviet Union in the German question. 1945-1964 Moscow, 1966; A. A. Galkin, D. E. Melnikov. USSR, Western powers and the German question (1945-1965). M. 1966; M. S. Voslensky. Vostochnaya politika FRG. M. 1967; V. A. Milyukova. Revenge diplomacy. Foreign Policy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Europe, Moscow, 1966; A. I. Stepanov. Foreign Policy and Diplomacy of the Federal Republic of Germany at the present stage. Moscow, 1967; N. N. Sofiyskiy. Bonn and Washington (A diplomatic history of the remilitarization of West Germany. The European Defense Community and the Western European Union), Moscow, 1969.

30 V. M. Khaytsman. The USSR and the problem of disarmament. 1945-1959. Moscow, 1970; "Modern problems of disarmament", Moscow, 1970.

page 14

During the years under review, works were published on a number of important aspects of the history of international relations in Europe, the history of the United Nations and other international organizations, and the foreign policy of many capitalist countries .31 Recent years have been extremely "fruitful" for studying international relations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America .32
Thus, the study of the history of foreign policy and international relations was conducted in 1966-1970 on a broad front. However, there are still many unresolved issues. These include, first of all, the study of theoretical questions and concrete forms of one of the leading principles of Soviet foreign policy - socialist internationalism. It is important to continue demonstrating the origin of this principle, its effect in the 1920s and 1940s, the Soviet Union's contribution to the development of the world revolutionary process, and its transformation into the principle of interstate relations between the USSR and other countries of the socialist community in the post - war period .33 Such a cross-cutting consideration helps to reveal various aspects and aspects, forms and manifestations of socialist internationalism. In this regard, it is particularly important to study the relations between all socialist countries and their joint actions in the international arena. It is also useful to study the problem of collective security as an integral part of the policy of peaceful coexistence. Soviet historical literature pays much attention to the history of the USSR's struggle for peaceful coexistence in the early 1920s. A problem-based approach to the development of these issues is fruitful, which allows us to show the theoretical foundations of the policy of peaceful coexistence, the forms of its manifestation in different periods, and the relationship between the policy of peaceful coexistence and the development of the world revolutionary process. All this makes it possible to reveal more deeply the connection and interaction of the two main principles of the USSR's foreign policy.

The creation of a special Research Institute of Military History (1966) served as an incentive for the development of this branch of science in the past five years. Over the years, the Institute has defined the directions and prospects of its activities, and has successfully begun to unite and coordinate the efforts of the country's military historians. His main focus was on the history of the Second World War. In recent years, many books, collective works and monographs have been published in our country, revealing various aspects of the history of the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War as a whole .34 The most urgent task is to create-

31 See, for example: "The Soviet Union and the United Nations Organization", Vol. 3, 1961-1965, Moscow, 1968; G. I. Morozo, V. International organizations. Nekotorye voprosy teorii [Some questions of Theory], Moscow, 1969; "UNESCO and Modernity", Moscow, 1966; A. A. Fursenko. The Rockefeller Dynasty, Moscow-L. 1970; A. N. Krasilnikov. English foreign policy and the Labour Party. 1951-1964. Moscow, 1968.

32 "The policy of England in the Near and Middle East", Moscow, 1966; "The policy of England in Africa", Moscow, 1967; A. M. Khazanov. Portugal's Policy in Asia and Africa, Moscow, 1967; O. E. Tuganova. International Relations in the Near and Middle East, Moscow, 1967; "Latin American Countries in Modern International Relations", Moscow, 1967; " The USSR and Latin American Countries. 1917-1967". Moscow, 1967; S. N. Morozov. Australian Colonialism, Moscow, 1967; I. I. Vasilevskaya. Japan and the countries of South-East Asia after the Second World War, Moscow, 1969; "Anti-Imperialist Revolution in Africa", Moscow, 1967.

33 In this regard, Sh. P.Sanakoev's monograph "The World System of Socialism" (Moscow, 1968) deserves attention.

34 "The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945". Brief history. Moscow, 1970; "The Second World War". In 3 books. Moscow, 1966; P. A. Zhilin. How Fascist Germany prepared an attack on the Soviet Union. Ed. 2-E. M. 1966; D. M. Proektor. Aggression and Catastrophe, Moscow, 1968; A. M. Samsonov. The Battle of Stalingrad, ed. 2-E. M. 1968; "The Stalingrad Epic", Moscow, 1968; A. A. Grechko. Battle for the Caucasus, Moscow, 1969; " Osvo-

page 15

a fundamental consolidated work on the history of the Second World War based on the work already done. The staff of the Institute of Military History, together with historians of other specialties, is now starting to implement it. The need for such work is especially obvious if we take into account the nature of the current stage of the ideological struggle. Bourgeois reactionary historiography has long chosen the history of the last war as one of the main themes in its struggle against communism, against the Soviet Union. It is an important task of Soviet historians to expose the anti - scientific concepts of bourgeois science and to show the true meaning of the events of 1939-1945.

The Institute of Military History has also published a number of works describing the significance of the legacy of Karl Marx, F. Engels, and V. I. Lenin for military history. 35 Soviet military historians have written works on the history of the civil war in the USSR, the struggle of the peoples of our country against the Napoleonic invasion, on general issues of the history and theory of the art of war .36 An important area of their work is the study of militaristic concepts and theories. An analysis of American doctrines, attempts to revive militarism in Germany, the history and current state of Japanese militarism, and other similar issues will help reveal the directions, forms, and methods of the military policy of international imperialism. The description of the activities of military historians will be incomplete if we do not mention several important scientific and theoretical conferences held by them. Among them are the International Scientific Conference dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, the scientific session "V. I. Lenin and Military History" and others.

The Department of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR develops two complex disciplines - Slavic studies and Oriental Studies. The Institute of Slavic Studies, which had existed for a long time, was transformed in 1969 into the Institute of Slavic Studies and Balkan Studies. His study of the history of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia is now supplemented by the development of the history of Hungary, Romania, Albania, and Greece, as well as general problems of the history of the Balkan countries. In 1966-1970, Soviet historians published a number of collections of documents and studies on the history of the Slavic and Balkan peoples in the periods preceding the construction of socialism in these countries .37 Great attention-

the liberation of Belarus. 1944". M. 1970; " On the North-Western front. 1941-1943". Moscow, 1969; "The struggle for the Soviet Baltic States in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945". Book 1-3. Riga, 1966-1969; V. F. Golubko, N. I. Baryshev. From Vidin to Belgrade, Moscow, 1968; "For the Liberation of Czechoslovakia", Moscow, 1970; M. M. Minasyan. Liberation of the peoples of South-Eastern Europe, Moscow, 1967; " Finale. September 3, 1945. " M. 1966, et al.

35 "V. I. Lenin on the Defense of the Socialist Fatherland", Moscow, 1968; "Karl Marx and Military History", Moscow, 1969; "F. V. Lenin on the Defense of the Socialist Fatherland". Engels and Military History, Moscow, 1970.

36 A. A. Strokov. History of military art. Capitalist society of the period of Imperialism, Moscow, 1967; G. A. Tsypkin. Krasnaya gvardiya v borbe za vlast Sovetov [Red Guard in the Struggle for Soviet Power]. Moscow, 1967; A. P. Nenarokov. Vostochny Front, Moscow, 1969;" Voprosy voennoi istorii Rossii XVIII i pervoi poloviny XIX veka", Moscow, 1969; P. A. Zhilin. The death of the Napoleonic Army in Russia, Moscow, 1968; " The First World War. 1914-1918". Moscow, 1968.

37 See, for example: "Liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish yoke". Documents in three volumes. Vol. 3. Moscow, 1967; "Hungarian Internationalists in the October Revolution and Civil War in the USSR". Collection of documents. Vol. I-II. Moscow, 1968; "Documents and materials on the history of Soviet-Polish relations", vol. 4. Moscow, 1966; vol. 5. Moscow, 1967; "Historical relations of the peoples of the USSR and Romania in the XV-early XVIII centuries". Documents and materials in three volumes. Vol. 2. M. 1968; "Drang nah Osten" and historical development of the countries of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe". M. 1967; S. M. Falkovich. Ideological and political struggle in the Polish Liberation Movement of the 50s-60s of the 19th century, Moscow, 1966; E. E. Chertan. Russian-Romanian relations in 1859-1863 Kishinev. 1968; V. Ya. Grosul, E. E. Chertan. Russia and the Formation of the Romanian Independent State, Moscow, 1969; V. N. Vinogradov. Romania during the First World War.

page 16

Soviet researchers also paid special attention to the development of the Slavic and Balkan countries in the post-war period38 .

When determining the main areas of work of the reorganized Institute of Slavic Studies and Balkan Studies, it should be taken into account that the deep social aspects of transformations in the European countries of socialism are still poorly studied. Focusing on historical and cultural processes, historians often overlook social and political issues. The peculiarities of international development in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe are also poorly studied. It is also important to determine the prospects for studying common Balkan problems, primarily their historical and international aspects. For many decades, the Balkans represented an area where the interests and contradictions of many European powers intersected. It is an important task of Soviet historians to trace the history of the Balkan events, the qualitative changes that took place in the Balkans, and to identify the features of the current situation in this area.

The study of problems of Oriental studies was fruitful in 1966-1970.. First of all, we should mention a wide field of research. Soviet orientalists studied all aspects of the development of the peoples of the East (history, economy, politics, culture). A three-volume work on the national liberation movement in Asia and Africa has been published .39 In recent years, Orientalists have increasingly gravitated to studies of a synthesizing problem plan and to consolidated works on the history of individual countries. Such works on the history of India, Afghanistan, Turkey, Japan, and Thailand have been published 40 . Konrad's book "The West and the East" (Moscow, 1966) aroused great interest, where a number of important problems of the comparative development of the East and the West were set against a broad historical background.

A significant number of works were published in the years under review on certain problems of the history of the Eastern countries41 . Among the debatable issues was the correlation between slave-owning and feudal formations in the East, and the nature of the"Asian mode of production" 42 .

1969; N. I. Lebedev. "The Iron Guard", Karol II and Hitler, Moscow, 1968; J. B. Schmeral. Formation of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918. Moscow, 1967; I. I. Leshchilovskaya. Illyrizm. M. 1968; Yu. A. Pisarev. Serbia and Montenegro in the First World War. 1914-1918, Moscow, 1968.

38 "The Great October Socialist Revolution and the World Socialist System", Moscow, 1969; P. S. Sohan. Socialist internationalism in action. Kiev, 1969; P. N. Popov. Bulgarian Communists in the struggle for the implementation of the Cultural Revolution. 1944-1948 Kharkiv, 1966; L. N. Nezhinsky. Essay on the history of People's Hungary. 1918-1962, Moscow, 1969.

39 "National Liberation Movement in Asia and Africa". Tt. I-III. Moscow, 1967-1968.

40 "The History of India in the Middle Ages", Moscow, 1968; G. M. Bongard-Levin, G. F. Ilyin. Ancient India, Moscow, 1969; N. V. Rebrikova. Essays on the new history of Thailand, Moscow, 1966; H. T. Eidus. History of Japan from ancient times to the present day, Moscow, 1968.

41 The most significant of them: S. L. Tikhvinsky. Russo-Chinese relations in the XVII century in 2 volumes, Moscow, 1969; E. I. Kychanov. Ocherki istorii Tangutskogo gosudarstva [Essays on the history of the Tangut State]. Moscow, 1968; Yu. V. Vanin. Economic development of Korea in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Moscow, 1968; P. M. Mochanyuk. The Javanese People's War. 1825-1830 Moscow, 1969; "Sun Yat-sen. 1866-1966". To the centenary of his birth, Moscow, 1966; V. P. Ilyushechkin. Peasant War taipinov, M. 1967; "Leninism and the National Liberation Movement", M. 1969; "The Working Class of the developing countries of Asia and Africa", M. 1967; " The Working Class and the National Liberation Movement in Vietnam. 1885-1930". Moscow, 1967; L. A. Gordon, M. N. Egorova. The Working Class of Independent India, Moscow, 1968; M. F. Yuryev. The Chinese Revolution of 1925-1927, Moscow, 1968; Yu. N. Rozaliev. Classes and Class Struggle in Turkey, Moscow, 1966; I. A. Latyshev. Japanese Bureaucracy, Moscow, 1968, et al.

42 See "General and special features in the historical development of the Eastern countries". Materials of the discussion on social formations in the East (Asian method of production), Moscow, 1968.

page 17

The problem of the genesis of capitalism in the Eastern countries is also a hot topic of discussion. It deals with the issues of initial accumulation and the correlation of capitalistically developed regions with States with backward forms of economy. Despite considerable attention to the problems of the working-class movement in the East, the issues of the communist movement, the history of communist parties, the specifics of their activities, and their social composition are poorly studied. The publication of historical sources on various issues of ancient, medieval and modern history is very successful 43 . Many of the publications carried out in the USSR were highly appreciated by the world community .44
Noting the achievements of Soviet historians over the past five years, it is impossible, of course, not to mention their success in the study of ancient history and the Middle Ages. The traditional high level of Soviet work on this issue has been confirmed in recent years. Research was conducted on a broad front, covering issues of economics and politics, ideology and culture. A significant number of works have been published on the ancient and medieval history of our country, as well as on the history of Western Europe and North America .45
The development of problems of the feudal history of the Russian state was carried out widely throughout the country and covered a wide range of issues. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there was a certain lag in the development of the political history of Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries. The post-Petrine period is also less studied, especially in the second quarter of the 18th century. It is gratifying that in recent years Soviet researchers have been fruitfully engaged in studying the history of the church, its place in the overall development of our country, since previously these issues were little developed. Much attention was paid to the study of the history of the ancient culture of our country. A number of published books show the origins of ancient Russian culture and art, and reveal the international significance of Russian culture .46
Equally active was the study of Western European feudalism: the history of the peasantry, socio-economic and political aspects of feudalism.-

43 "Materials on the history of the Xiongnu (based on Chinese sources), Moscow, 1968;" Description of Chinese manuscripts of the Dunhuang Foundation." Issue 2. Moscow, 1967; "Documents on the history of the Japanese village", Part 1. The end of the XVII-first half of the XVIII century. Moscow, 1967, et al.

44 See, for example, A. Firdousi. Shahnameh. Critical text. Vol. 1-7. Moscow, 1957-1968; "Mahabharata". Books 1-2, 4. Moscow, 1967.

45 The problems of feudalism in the East and among the Slavs were discussed above. The largest and most general works on the history of Russian feudalism; P. N. Tretyakov. Finno-Ugric peoples, Balts and Slavs on the Dnieper and Volga. Moscow-L. 1966; V. L. Yanin. Assembly seals of Ancient Russia of the X-XV centuries. Moscow, 1970; A. N. Nasonov. Istoriya russkogo letopisaniya XI - nachala XVIII V. M. 1969; "Kratkiy ocherk istorii russkoi kul'tury s drevneyshikh vremeni do 1917 g." L. 1967; " Pages of the military past. Essays on the military history of Russia", Moscow 1967; "Peasantry and class struggle in feudal Russia", L. 1967; "International relations of Russia in the XVII-XVIII centuries", M. 1966; "Slavs and Rus", M. 1968; "Problems of the emergence of feudalism among the peoples of the USSR", M. 1969; V. T. Pashuto. Foreign Policy of Ancient Russia, Moscow, 1968; S. M. Kashtanov. Sotsial'no-politicheskaya istoriya Rossii kontsa XV - pervoi poloviny XVI V. [Socio-political history of Russia in the late XV-first half of the XVI century]. Formation of estate-representative institutions in Russia, L. 1969; A.M. Sakharov, Education and Development of the Russian State in the XIV-XVII centuries, Moscow, 1969; S. M. Troitsky. Financial policy of the Russian absolutism, Moscow, 1966; "Transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia", Moscow, 1969; I. I. Smirnov, A. G. Mankov, E. P. Podyapolskaya, V. V. V. Mavrodi, N. Krestyanskie voyny v Rossii v XVII-XVIII vvakh [Peasant Wars in Russia in the XVII - XVIII centuries]. Moskovskoe vosstanie kontsa XVII veka [Moscow Uprising of the late 17th century]. Moscow, 1969. Works on the history of Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Dagestan, Bashkiria, Kalmykia, Chuvashia, Tuva, Kabardino-Balkaria, etc. were published.

46 See G. N. Bocharov. Applied Art of Novgorod the Great. M. 1969; "Culture of Ancient Russia". M. 1966; "Culture and Art of Ancient Russia". M. 1967; V. N. Lazarev. Mikhailovsky Mosaics, Moscow, 1966. Novgorod icon painting, Moscow, 1966; A. P. Okladnikov. Morning of Art, L. 1967; A. A. Formozov. Essays on primitive Art, Moscow, 1969.

page 18

political issues, ideology and culture 47 . Among the many problems of the history of feudalism that have attracted the attention of scientists, I would like to highlight the typology and essence of feudalism. Discussions on them touched upon the cardinal issues of socio-economic formations, the peculiarities of the transition from one formation to another. Most of the discussions were based on Western European material, but experts on the history of Russia and Eastern countries took part in them. The introduction of fresh factual material into scientific circulation, the use of new methods of historical analysis, including structural ones, expand the possibilities of cognition and disclosure of complex problems of the maturation of the feudal formation. Further successful study of the history of feudalism also involves raising new questions, including debatable ones. But there is a natural question about the nature of these searches and discussions. The discussion of A. Y. Gurevich's book "Problems of the Genesis of Feudalism in Western Europe" held in 1970 at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University was very instructive in this respect48 .

In connection with the formulation of new problems, it is important to determine the attitude to the previous literature. It is objectionable that a number of authors, when outlining new perspectives and tasks in research, cross out the works of their predecessors without any grounds, passing off only their ideas as new and advanced. This statement is all the more true in relation to the problems of feudalism, where the achievements of our historians are so great and universally recognized. It is also necessary to emphasize the need for serious scientific argumentation when putting forward such provisions that revise or refute previously established and well-established ideas. The experience gained in recent years and the emergence of a large number of serious studies create a favorable basis for raising new questions in the study of the genesis of feudalism, identifying the features of its development in Western Europe, Russia and the East.

The achievements of Soviet archaeology are well-known. During this five-year period, archaeologists continued to study the history of primitive and slave-owning societies, the genesis of feudalism, the history of culture, art, and religion. According to a long-standing tradition, they conduct extensive front-end research of various regions of our country49 . First of all, I would like to note the great importance of the work related to the discovery of Novgorod birch bark letters. As you know, a group of Soviet archaeologists led by a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Academy of Sciences of the USSR A.V. Artsikhovsky and V. L. Yanin for these discoveries was awarded the State Prize for 1970 50 . Excavations of many ancient Russian cities continued: Kiev, Smolensk, Pskov, Novgorod and others. Archaeologists also studied the ancient history of the Caucasus, Central Asia, the peoples of the Urals, Siberia, the Far East and the North of our country51 . Significant shifts in the-

47 See: S. D. Skazkin. Essays on the history of the Western European peasantry in the Middle Ages, Moscow, 1968. Italian peasantry and the city of the XI-XIV centuries. Moscow, 1967; A. A. Svanidze. Craft and artisans of medieval Sweden (XIV-XV centuries). Moscow, 1967; "The emergence of capitalism in industry and agriculture in Europe, Asia and America". Moscow, 1967; M. A. Barg. Narodnye nizy v angliiskoi revolyutsii XVII v. M. 1967; Teoreticheskie i istoriograficheskie problemy genezisa kapitalizma [Theoretical and Historiographical Problems of the Genesis of Capitalism], Moscow, 1969.

48 See Voprosy Istorii, 1970, No. 9, pp. 154-167.

49 Reports on all archaeological excavations are published in a special annual publication: "Archaeological discoveries" (for 1965-M. 1966; for 1966-M. 1967; for 1967-M. 1968; for 1968 - M. 1969).

50 See on the significance of these discoveries: L. V. Cherepnin. Novgorod Birch bark letters as a historical source, Moscow, 1969.

51 See: I. N. Vyazinin. Staraya Russa, L. 1967; V. I. Dovzhenok. Древне- руське місто Воїнь. Київ. 1966; П. А. Раппопорт. Military architecture of the Western Russian lands of the X-XI centuries, L. 1967; " Ancient history and culture of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea Coast-

page 19

They are observed in the study of the Paleolithic. A whole series of works on these problems significantly expands the understanding of the history of mankind in the Stone Age. It should be noted that in recent years, archaeologists have introduced new methods of analysis, including Stone Age tools, which make it possible to study the history of primitive society more successfully .52 The Institute of Archaeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor in 1967 for its outstanding achievements.

Significant changes have taken place in the development of ethnography. In recent years, Soviet ethnographers have increasingly begun to develop theoretical problems related to national relations in our country and abroad, studying ethnic processes in close connection with the problems of class formation and the emergence of statehood. Research in this direction was conducted on a broad front, covering the issues of ethnogenesis of the Slavs and other peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa and America, with a special emphasis on the study of modern ethnic processes. Naturally, the main attention was paid to the study of ethnic processes in our country. Using an integrated approach, relying on data from ethnography, ethnosociology, anthropology, linguistics, and archeology, ethnographers studied the development features of small peoples of the North, the peoples of the Volga region, the Caucasus, Siberia, Transcarpathian Ukraine, and other regions of our country, as well as the peoples of foreign countries .53 Ethnographers completed a 13-volume series of works "Peoples of the World".

Over the past five years, many scientific papers have been published on various aspects of the history of culture and everyday life of the peoples of the USSR and other countries. Much attention was paid to the study of the life of peoples who do not have a written tradition, historical and ethnographic monographs were published about the Ulchi, Veps, Archins, Nivkhs, Chukchi, Nenets and other small peoples of our country54. Soviet ethnographers are preparing historical and ethnographic atlases, which are now being compiled in collaboration with scientists from other socialist countries in Europe. We should also mention the development of such a topical scientific and political topic as the fight against racism. Collections published on this subject expose racism as a form of political ideology of the reactionary bourgeoisie, and show the actions of racists in the countries of America and Africa .55 Soviet ethnographers also made a significant contribution

morya", L. 1968; "Antique antiquities of the Don region-Azov region", M. 1969; V. D. Blavatsky. Antique Field Archeology, Moscow, 1967; I. T. Kruglikova. Bosporus in Late Antique Times, Moscow, 1966; V. A. Shishkin. Afrasiab is a cultural treasure trove. Tashkent, 1966, and others.

52 V. E. Larichev. Paleolithic of North, Central and East Asia. Novosibirsk. 1969; K. M. Polikarpovich. Paleolithic of the Upper Dnieper region. Minsk. 1967; "Central Asia in the era of stone and bronze", Moscow-L. 1966; V. N. Sukachev, V. I. Gromov, O. N. Bader. Upper Paleolithic site of Sungir, Moscow, 1966; I. G. Pidoplichko. Late Paleolithic dwelling made of mammoth bones. Kiev, 1969; S. A. Sardaryan. Primitive society in Armenia. Yerevan, 1967.

53 See: "Russian Historical and Ethnographic Atlas", Moscow, 1967; "The origin of the Ossetian people". Ordzhonikidze. 1967; A. S. Arutyunov, D. A. Sergeev. Ancient cultures of Asian Eskimos (Uelensky burial ground), Moscow, 1969; "Ethnography of the Russian population of Siberia and Central Asia", Moscow, 1969; L. M. Saburova. Kul'tura i byt russkogo naseleniya Priangariya [Culture and life of the Russian population of the Angara region]. For ethnography of the peoples of the world, see: "Culture and life of the peoples of the Pacific and Indian Oceans", Moscow, 1966; "Culture and life of the peoples of foreign Europe", Moscow, 1967; S. A. Arutyunov. Modern life of the Japanese, Moscow, 1968.

54 I. S. Vdovin. Essays on the History and Ethnography of the Chukchi people, L. 1965; V. V. Pimenov. Vepsy, M.-L. 1965; A. V. Smolyak. Ulchi, 1966; L. V. Khomich. Nenets, L. 1966; G. A. Sergeeva. Archintsy, Moscow, 1967; Ch. Taksami. Nivkhi, L. 1967; G. M. Vasilevich. Evenki, L. 1969;

55 "Against racism", Moscow, 1966; "No to racism", Moscow, 1968; "Documents expose racism", Moscow, 1968.

page 20

in the study of the history of primitive society, both in concrete historical and theoretical terms, general problems of ethnography 56 .

A significant event was the International Congress of Ethnographers and Anthropologists, held in 1968 in Japan. The works of Soviet ethnographers received international recognition. The Congress also allowed us to better understand the place of Soviet ethnography in world ethnographic science. In recent years, the scope of Soviet ethnography has significantly expanded. The old view of ethnography as a science that studies mainly archaic forms of modern life is increasingly being replaced by the idea of the complexity and breadth of topics that fall within the scope of ethnographers ' interests. Ethnography now forms an important part of historical science, which studies the ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the world's peoples in an inseparable connection with their social, economic and political development. The achievements of Soviet ethnography provide additional material for revealing the general laws and peculiarities of human development.

In 1966-1970, the Soviet historical science was further strengthened organizationally. Two new institutes were created (on the basis of the former Institute of History) - the history of the USSR and general history; as noted above, work began at the new Institute of Military History; the Institute of Slavic Studies was reorganized into the Institute of Slavic Studies and Balkan Studies.

Scientific councils on various problems of historical science actively developed their activity. They have held numerous scientific sessions, conferences and symposia. Speaking about serious success in the work of scientific councils, it should still be noted that they are not very active in determining the topics of scientific research throughout the country. They gave little scientific advice, and almost did not influence the definition of topics for doctoral and candidate theses. As before, the institutions of the Academy of Sciences have little connection with higher education institutions, where a large group of Soviet historians successfully works. Unfortunately, the coordination of scientific activities in universities and research institutions is far from perfect.

There are also many unresolved issues in the training of scientific personnel. For a number of scientific specialties, this task is a priority. These include" rare " specialties (paleography, sphragistics, numismatics, Byzantine studies, etc.) and a number of "modern" specialties (the international labor movement, the history of social democracy, its parties and organizations, certain aspects of the history of international relations, the history of the Scandinavian countries, Spain, Belgium, Holland, and some others).

In recent years, Soviet historians have successfully represented Soviet science abroad. The XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences in Moscow, the V International Congress on Economic History in Leningrad, the International Congress of Orientalists in Australia, the International Congress of Ethnographers and Anthropologists in Japan, the Soviet-Italian, Soviet - English, Soviet-French, Soviet-Finnish meetings of historians and many other contacts with foreign scientists aroused great interest in the historical community. There are great successes and achievements in the cooperation of Soviet historians with scientists of socialist countries. Over the past years, a large number of meetings have taken place with historians from Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, the GDR, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Mongolia, Cuba, Yugoslavia, and the DRV. Extremely fertile-

56 See K. I. Kozlov. Istoriya pervobytnogo obshchestva i osnovy etnografii [History of primitive Society and Fundamentals of Ethnography], Moscow, 1967; Razrazdenie rodovogo sistema i formirovanie klassovogo obshchestva, Moscow, 1968; Osnovy etnografii, Moscow, 1968; V. P. Alekseev, A. L. Mongayt, A. I. Pershits. Istoriya pervobytnogo obshchestva [History of primitive society], Moscow, 1968; " Essays on general Ethnography: Zarubezhnaya Evropa", Moscow 1966; "Evropeyskaya chast SSSR", Moscow 1968, et al.

page 21

The cooperation of historians of socialist countries during the XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences was particularly important.

Looking back over the past years, it can be stated that the achievements of Soviet historians are great and versatile. Thousands of scientists working in research institutes and higher educational institutions worked on numerous problems of national and world history, archeology and ethnography. The scope of historical research has expanded, its forms and methods have been improved, new tasks have emerged, unresolved problems have been revealed, shortcomings and shortcomings have been identified. This is a natural process determined by the complexity and diversity of life, the growing needs of the practice of communist construction, the tasks of the ideological struggle at the present stage, and finally, the internal logic of the development of science itself.

On the eve of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU, Soviet historians made new commitments. A number of important and relevant works are planned to be published, and sessions and conferences on some problems of historical science are planned. One of the priority tasks is to strengthen communication between the institutions of the USSR Academy of Sciences and higher educational institutions. There is a lot of work to be done by historians to create new textbooks and textbooks for higher and especially secondary schools. Helping secondary schools, historians make an invaluable contribution to the formation of students ' worldview, their education based on revolutionary and patriotic traditions.

Soviet historians strive to further improve the ideological and theoretical level of research, improve their professional skills, and improve the organizational forms of historical science development. They are ready to carry out with honor the tasks that will be assigned to them by the XXIV Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

page 22

Permanent link to this publication: