A. A. GUBER. The Twelfth International Congress of Historical Sciences

Drawing on individual reports and discussions, the author reviews the principal trends in the activity of the Twelfth International Congress of Historical Sciences, held in Vienna in September 1965.

The Congress testified to the heightened interest manifested by historians of all countries in topical themes, including problems linked with contemporaneity. It was precisely such topical problems that gave rise to most heated discussions and ideological controversy. In the "major" themes panel such discussions developed around the paper entitled "Nationalism and Internationalism," in the "History of the Continents" panel- around the paper on "Political and Economic Changes in Afro-Asian Countries." In the chronological panels heated arguments arose over the problems of the First and Second world wars. But even papers like "The Ruling Classes from Ancient to Modern Times," "The Peasant Movements in the Middle Ages" and others revealed different methodological views on historical problems. The ideological struggle of Marxist historians, who defended the scientific Marxist-Leninist methodology, against the representatives of diverse idealist trends was manifested most saliently in the methodological panel in connection with two papers - one by Academician M. V. Nechkina, V. T. Pashuto and E. B. Chernyak (U.S.S.R.), the other by Prof. Engelberg (G.D.R.).

Historians from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries were represented at the Twelfth Congress by a considerably larger number of delegates than at the preceding one. The number of scientific communications submitted by them accounted for approximately one-third of the total. The historians from the socialist countries actively participated in the discussions, drawing on a wealth of factual data. The Congress convincingly demonstrated the growing influence of Marxist-Leninist historical science in the capitalist countries and testified to the process of polarization taking place among non-Marxist historians.

A. E. JOFFE. The Activity of Foreign Societies for Friendship with the Soviet Union

Drawing on archive and published documents, the author reviews the history of the establishment of mass political organizations for promoting friendship with the Soviet Union. Towards the close of 1932, he writes, associations for promoting friendship with the U.S.S.R. existed in 21 countries, including the U.S.A., Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Czechoslovakia. They united approximately 100,000 individual members, 30 per cent of them Communists and 70 per cent belonging to other parties or without party affiliation.

Analyzing the practical activity of the alliances for friendship with the Soviet Union, the author shows that it was chiefly directed towards exposing the imperialist anti-Soviet interventionist plans, promoting active participation in mobilizing the progressive forces for the struggle in defence of the U.S.S.R., organizing visits to the Soviet Union by workers' delegations, disseminating authentic information on the Soviet five-years plans, on the achievements of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. In a number of countries the governments either banned or restricted the activity of societies for friendship with the

U.S.S.R. A close analysis of the history of their activity graphically shows that associations for friendship with the U.S.S.R. did much to unite the progressive forces in the capitalist countries, which helped the Soviet Union to thwart the interventionist designs of imperialist reaction, repel the warmongers' attacks and create favourable external conditions for consummating the construction of socialist society.

B. М. SHERESHEVSKY. The Establishment of the Far-Eastern Republic

The complicated international, military and political situation in the period of struggle against foreign intervention and internal counter-revolution compelled Soviet power in the opening months of 1920 to take the course of establishing an intermediate "buffer".state to the east of Lake Baikal, which was to serve as a barrier protecting the Russian Republic against the encroachments of the Japanese and other imperialists from the East, and as a means of utilizing the inter-imperialist contradictions.

Drawing on a number, of new documentary materials and making a critical approach to the treatment of formerly utilized sources, the author tries to elucidate some of the little-studied pages relating to the early period of struggle for the establishment of a Far-Eastern "buffer" with a view to shedding additional light on some important aspects of the given subject.

Particular attention is devoted in the article to illustrating the role played by the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), its Siberian Bureau and V. I. Lenin in elaborating the "buffer" policy of the Soviet state in the Far East and eliminating the serious differences which arose over this question in the Party organizations of Siberia and the Far East.

The author clearly shows in his article that the Far-Eastern "buffer" republic established under the leadership of the Communist Party, fulfilled its historic mission: Skilfully and flexibly combining peaceful and military means of struggle and avoiding an open armed clash with Japan, it created the prerequisites for liberating the Far East from the Whiteguards and foreign interventionists in the autumn of 1922.

Y. S. KUKUSHKIN. The Soviets in the Rehabilitation Period

The author stresses that the Communist Party and the Soviet state have always devoted particular attention to the activization of the Soviets. The first steps in this direction were taken under V. I. Lenin's immediate leadership. The article illustrates the process of activization of the Soviets, their active participation in the struggle against the counterrevolutionary revolts and banditry, the establishment of closer ties between the Soviets and the broad non-Party masses in town and country. The basic conclusion drawn by the author is that the activization of the Soviets began not in the mid-1920's, as many researchers believe, but in 1921. The measures carried out by the government in this direction in 1924 - 1925 were not the initial, but an important intermediate stage in the effort to activize the Soviets.

I. N. OLEGINA. Contemporary American and British Historiography on Soviet Industrialization

In the opening part of the article the author draws attention to the fact that the industrialization of Russia began as a capitalist process. This process remained uncompleted because in the conditions of the 20th century capitalism was unable to direct a backward country along the road of economic progress. The problem of the country's industrialization was effectively solved only as a result of the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, in the process of socialist construction.

I. N. Olegina singles out two principal trends in British and American bourgeois historiography on the question of Soviet industrialization - objectivism and outright falsi-

fication-and gives a brief characteristic of these trends from the 1930's to our days. The article criticizes the widespread bourgeois conception which alleges that Russia would have attained a high level of industrial progress without the socialist revolution. Proceeding from the thesis that the socialist revolution in Russia was merely an "accident," the advocates of this conception are inclined to believe that Russian capitalism was fully capable of overcoming the country's backwardness. Much attention is devoted by the author to a critical analysis of the latest tendency in British and American bourgeois historiography, which finds expression in persistent attempts to reexamine Russia's history from the end of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century in the light of the "single industrial society" theory.

L. A. ZAK From the History of the Diplomatic Struggle at the Vienna Congress

Drawing on materials from the Russian archives as well as on Russian and foreign documentary publications, the author highlights the activity of the 1814 - 15 Vienna Congress - one of the major congresses in the history of international relations, and analyzes the main trends in studying the Congress in the 19th and 20th centuries. The author convincingly proves the scientific insolvency of contemporary reactionary historiography in illustrating the positions of Russia, Britain, Austria and Prussia, and gives an objective picture of the alignment of forces at the Vienna Congress and of the diplomatic struggle between its main participants. The author's attention is focussed on the Polish-Saxon question - the most important question on the Congress agenda. The author reveals the acute contradictions between the great powers on the cardinal problems of Europe's reorganization after the Napoleonic Wars and the causes responsible for the split of the anti-Napoleon coalition and the formation of new diplomatic groupings, whose struggle determined the entire proceedings of the Vienna Congress and the content of its concluding act.

E. M. STAYERMAN. The Problem of the Fall of the Roman Republic in Soviet Historiography

The author points out that the problem of the fall of the Roman Republic attracted the attention of our historians from the early years of Soviet power. In the initial period its treatment reflected the struggle between the counter-revolutionary ideology of bourgeois intellectuals and the nascent Marxist thought. An important step forward was made in the 1930's-1940's in establishing the specific features of the slave-owning society and the processes at work within it, in the study of the various forms of class struggle carried on by the slaves and plebeians in the century preceding the fall of the republic. However, the influence of the "slaves' revolution" concept and a somewhat one-sided understanding of the tasks of struggle against the modernization of history deprived many authors of the possibility to solve not only a number of particular questions, but also the principal problem, namely, whether the fall of the republic can be regarded as a result of the revolution. These shortcomings have, to a considerable extent, been overcome in S. L. Utchenko's monograph "The Crisis of the Roman Republic." Drawing on the achievements of Soviet and world science in the sphere of factual research, writes Е. М. Stayerman, he convincingly proves that the replacement of the republic by an empire constituted a revolution determined by the crisis of the ancient form of property and, consequently, by the disintegration of the classes and social institutions connected with it.

Publisher:

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Found source (search robot):

Comments: