Libmonster ID: KG-1293
Author(s) of the publication: A. A. HUBER

(SOME RESULTS AND PROSPECTS)

Academician A. A. Huber

The next International Congress of Historical Sciences met for the first time in the Soviet Union. From August 16 to August 23, 1970, the halls and auditoriums of Moscow State University on Leninsky Hills hosted lively and crowded sessions of sections of the Congress, numerous commissions of the International Committee of Historical Sciences (ICS) and its affiliated international associations and organizations. As expected by its organizers, the next congress surpassed all previous ones in terms of the number of historians who participated in it (over 3,300 people), representing 50 countries of five continents. This is a re-manifestation of the trend of a noticeable increase in the number of participants, which was already revealed at the last international congresses of historians. In addition, the congress venue and various excursions after the congress to ancient Russian cities rich in cultural monuments, Central Asia, Siberia, and Ukraine were undoubtedly an attractive moment for its participants. This is also evidenced by the large number of family members who accompanied the congress delegates. Scientists who came to the congress, and many of them visited the Soviet Union for the first time, had the opportunity to get acquainted with the life and achievements of Soviet society, to get a more complete picture of the ancient and modern culture of the peoples of the USSR. The" ladies 'committee" of the congress was faced with a difficult task - during the week, while historians argued and discussed reports, to provide those who did not participate in the meetings with the opportunity to see everything they were interested in in Moscow and its environs. For the organizers, the satisfaction and appreciation of the guests was undoubtedly a reward for all their hard work.

The Moscow Congress of Historians met in the year of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. A special symposium was dedicated to the role of V. I. Lenin in the development of historical science, which was included in the congress program by the IKIN on the initiative of the Soviet Organizing Committee. The symposium was an important and bright page in the work of the congress. The exceptionally large number of its participants is convincing evidence of the enormous international authority of V. I. Lenin.

Comparing the Moscow Congress with the previous three international congresses in which I have participated, I would like first of all to note that never before have the meetings been so crowded, and the number of people who wanted to participate in the discussion was so large. This is due not only to an increase in the total number of participants in the congress, but also to some new organizational changes.

page 3

points made by the decisions of IKIN 1 . Although these new developments have not yet been implemented as fully as the IKIN and the Soviet Organizing Committee intended, they have undoubtedly played a positive role.

These include, first of all, the selection of two "big" topics on methodology and history of continents, which were discussed entirely on the first day of the congress, and the selection of "main" topics for each of the chronological sections - from ancient to modern history. Discussions on the "main" topics of interest not only for specialists in a particular historical period, but also for a wide range of historians, were held on different days, starting from the second day of the congress. Having identified the "big" and "main" topics, the IKIN for the first time in the history of congresses of historical sciences introduced a combination of free discussion with discussion by experts. Each "big" and "main" topic began with a discussion of speakers and experts selected by the ICIN from among the candidates proposed by the national Committees of well-known historians and specialists on this issue. Expert presentations were intended to promote a broader and more in-depth free discussion.

The second significant point was the advance printing and distribution of almost all reports provided for in the congress program. Thus, even before arriving at the congress, its participants could get acquainted with the content of reports, choose the problems they are interested in, and prepare for their discussion. At the same time, a preliminary acquaintance with the reports made it unnecessary to read them at the congress and allowed us to immediately start discussing them. Unfortunately, this was not fully implemented. Despite the fact that the IKIN set strict deadlines for the submission of texts by speakers, with the exception of the National Committee of Historians of the United States and the National Committee of Historians of the Soviet Union, they were not met. Many reports were received very late, which naturally made it difficult to print them. Some texts actually arrived at the same time as the speakers just before the congress. Nevertheless, the main goal was achieved: time was freed up for discussion, more participants were able to speak out, and the speeches themselves were more prepared and in-depth.

Finally, the main program of the XIII Congress included for the first time the work of two organizations affiliated to the ICIN: the Commission on the History of Social Movements and Social Structures and the Committee on the History of the Second World War. The last day of the congress was entirely devoted to a parallel discussion on their reports. This, of course, should be recognized as a successful experience. First, without being distracted by other meetings, the congress participants ' attention could be drawn to the current and interesting problems of these commissions, which carry out a lot of work in the period between congresses and almost annually hold conferences and colloquiums on their problems. Between the Vienna and Moscow Congresses of Historical Sciences, the Commission on the History of Social Movements and Social Structures dealt with the agrarian question and peasant movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. The report summarizing this work was submitted to the Congress for discussion. The problem of the report of the World War II History Committee was the role of the masses in World War II. As a result of the inclusion of the results of the activities of the above-mentioned commissions in the main program of the Moscow Congress, their meetings, which attracted attention at previous congresses, were particularly crowded and turned out to be very interesting.-

1 See Academician A. A. Guber. Moscow Congress of Historians. Voprosy Istorii, 1970, No. 3.

page 4

the discussion that followed was very lively. Secondly, the mere fact that the work of the commissions is included in the general program of the congress can have a beneficial impact on other internal commissions of the ICIN and affiliated organizations, and can be an incentive to strengthen their activities in the periods between congresses. Many of these organizations are still very weak, and the issues they choose are not always relevant. The prospect of possible inclusion in the main program of the international congress will undoubtedly help to revive their activities and promote the selection of issues of interest to a wide range of historians as a subject for discussion.

The correct combination of interesting "big" and "main" topics, reports summarizing the work of some commissions, and the most significant reports on chronological sections proposed by national committees as components of the program of international congresses depends on the further success of international forums of historians, which are becoming more crowded and difficult to manage every five years. The point of preserving international congresses, which have turned into meetings of thousands of historians of various specialties and representing different scientific interests, is not, of course, that they can study and solve certain specific historical or methodological problems. This is the task of more specialized conferences and colloquiums, where individual scientists, as a result of in-depth research and use of sources, make a new contribution to the study or understanding of the most important historical epochs, the laws of the process of human development in general and important historical events in particular. But it is precisely at international congresses, which now bring together several thousand scientists of different generations who adhere to different ideological and methodological concepts, that the results of the latest achievements of historians of various specialties and trends in the development of historical science can be comprehensively discussed and critically analyzed. Thanks to the congresses, new discoveries and interpretations become known to a wide range of historians, often even before they are translated into monographic works and publications. However, a comprehensive discussion of the factual reasoning and conclusions may also be useful for speakers. In order to achieve these goals and ensure that the congresses are not only justified, but also become more important and fruitful, their well-thought-out organization is especially important.

Summing up some of the results of the XIII Congress, I would like first of all to focus on the sessions devoted to" big " topics, so that we can identify further organizational improvements to this proven method.

The main" big " topic of methodology was the correlation of historical science with other social sciences. The very choice of this topic was prompted by the IKIN by the unmistakable tendency that is increasingly evident in concrete historical studies of historians who stand on the most diverse and opposite ideological positions. This tendency leads to the inevitable refusal to study historical events, political history without taking into account economic factors, without analyzing social relations, class structure. This is especially clearly seen in many works devoted to recent, modern history. However, the practical recognition of the need for generalizations, the derivation of basic laws, without which it is impossible to understand the turbulent, eventful and complex phenomena of the modern era, is still combined by many authors, whose specific research is of undoubted scientific value, with attempts to "theoretically" and "fundamentally" deny the existence of such a phenomenon.

page 5

general laws of the historical process. Perhaps that is why the study of modern history itself and the training of relevant specialists at universities were artificially separated from historical science, and turned into an independent branch - Political Science (political science). However, the artificiality of such a gap inevitably becomes more and more noticeable. The study of modern history, which until recently was generally denied the right to be considered a historical science, is increasingly firmly established in this right and attracts more and more attention from historians. This is undoubtedly evidenced not only by the allocation of a special chronological section of modern history in the programs of international congresses of historical sciences, but also by the special number of participants in the meetings of this section.

Ethnography, sociology, and other social sciences naturally develop their own research methods that meet their goals and objectives. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that these sciences cannot develop without a historical approach to the subject of research. The more any field of study of human society, ethnic, national, class communities, economic relations, ideologies becomes a study of the process of their change and development, the stronger and more noticeable the principle of historicism comes into its own. At the same time, historians who study even the most remote periods of the past of mankind cannot ignore in their work the methods and techniques, conclusions and generalizations achieved by other social sciences.

At the same time, the scientific and technological revolution and, in particular, the invention and further improvement of computing devices could not but have an impact on the methodology of social sciences. Sociologists, economists, and demographers are increasingly resorting to the use of computers that allow them to quickly process a huge amount of factual material. The interest of historians in the possibilities of using the latest technology in historical research, and not only in the field of economic history, the history of agricultural relations, etc., but also for the analysis of socio-political relations is noticeably increasing. It is this interest and attempts to organize the correlation and connection of various social sciences, as well as the urgency of the question of the use of mathematical methods in historical research that predetermined the first "big" topic - "The Historian and social Sciences" and one of the sub - topics - "Figures as an element of information for the historian".

The discussion on the reports of the" big " methodological topic, which was attended, in addition to six speakers, by 23 people, as one might expect, was acute, because in the course of it, along with disputes about the relationship of history with other social sciences, fundamental conceptual differences in the understanding of history as a science inevitably came to the fore. interpretation of the processes of world-historical development. The Marxist approach to these problems was opposed to the various views of the opponents of Marxism. The denial of objective laws of historical development by non-Marxist historians and the justification of the significance of objective laws as engines of the historical process by Marxist historians, as at previous international congresses, was the core of the discussion. At the XIII Congress, this basic contradiction was presented in reports and speeches through the prism of a" big " topic. Professor T. Schieder (Germany), for example, argued that there is an impassable gap between history, which studies the past, and the social sciences. Professor J. Hexter (USA) ironically assessed the possibilities of applying quantitative methods in the study of history. Strongly objecting to any single methodological approach that supposedly deprives the historian of his freedom,-

page 6

J. Hexter defended empirical, subjective methods of writing historical works. The Speaker's subjective displeasure with criticism of his methodology in Soviet publications caused him to make attacks that can hardly be considered appropriate at an international congress. Arbitrary subjectivism in historical research under the banner of "freedom" from" official views " was also defended by Professor A. Dubuc (Canada). Professor A. Dupron (France) proposed to replace the explanation of the causes of historical events with an explanation of the subjective motives of human behavior. Professor E. Sestan (Italy) contrasted the history of events with the study of social structures, although unlike some other Western historians, he was not inclined to exaggerate the importance of structural analysis and give it a universal role in the study of historical phenomena.

Marxist experts and panelists convincingly proved the importance of objective laws of historical development. While revealing the determinism of Marxist philosophy and the methodology of history, they also showed that Marxism is alien to the spirit of fatalism. Marxist historians have also criticized their opponents ' attempts to separate historical science from other social sciences. The Soviet expert academician E. M. Zhukov noted that Marxism does not contrast history with other social sciences, because they are united by common tasks of studying the laws of human society development. Historians, like representatives of other social sciences, inevitably resort to generalizations. The Soviet expert showed that it is impossible to build artificial barriers between the past, present and future, and that historical science, within certain limits, can, like other social sciences, not only explain the present, but also contribute to predicting the future. He also dwelled on the Marxist understanding of the alternativeness of historical development, pointing out the relativity of this alternativeness and the crucial importance of the mode of production as the economic basis of society. E. M. Zhukov emphasized the need to observe the principle of historicism in its Marxist understanding. An expert from the GDR, Academician E. Engelberg, criticized reactionary historicism. He contrasted the subjectivist propositions with the Marxist-Leninist theory of socio-economic formations. Professor G. E. Glezerman (USSR), who spoke in the discussion, emphasized the need for generalizations in the study of historical events, taking into account the peculiarity of the historical process in different countries and at different times. Like Academician E. Engelberg, he emphasized the crucial importance of the concept of socio-economic formation as a historical type of society. Professor G. E. Glezerman noted the inconsistency of contrasting the motives of human actions with their causal explanation; he stressed the need to find out the real roots of subjective motives of human actions. At the same time, he objected to the identification of the causal connection of events with the premeditation of human actions and to the substitution of clarifying their causes by determining the conditions under which certain events occurred. Soviet and other Marxist historians also gave their own understanding of structural analysis as one of the methods of historical research that in no way replaces a comprehensive study of the processes of human society development.

The discussion of the sub-topic "Figures as an element of historian's information" showed how much interest historians have in the possibility of using mathematical research methods. The discussion, which included 19 participants in addition to the speakers, examined the extent to which new methods are already being applied in different countries. The discussion helped to clarify the tasks and opportunities of studying history through analysis, quantitative indicators, etc.-

page 7

and applications of calculating and computing machines. The collective report of Soviet scientists (I. D. Kovalchenko, D. V. Deopik, G. M. Dobrov, Yu. Yu. Kakhk, Kh. E. Palli, V. A. Ustinov) summarized the results of applying new methods in the Soviet Union in economic history, quantitative analysis of social terms in chronicle sources, etc. The Soviet report was based on the Marxist premise of the primacy of methodology over methodology and the need for a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis. The speeches of Soviet historians were listened to with interest and attention, and the report was highly appreciated in the debate. All the speakers agreed with the thesis that the success of historical research is determined not by the use of mathematical and machine methods as such, but by the goals and nature of the research.

Participants in the discussions, as well as some experts (K. A. Lukerat from Germany), spoke about the use of mathematical methods and electronic computers in their countries. The undoubted fruitfulness of the presentation of this topic at the international congress was also reflected in the fact that specialists from different countries, many of whom are enthusiastic about new methods, were able to establish direct contact with each other. The talks outlined ways to further exchange experience and coordinate research and research. Despite the skeptical opinions of some scientists (Professor J. Hexter and others), the discussion undoubtedly confirmed the possibility and fruitfulness of applying new research methods in the field of social sciences, especially such as sociology, economic history, and demography. Soviet historians can feel satisfied that their work in this field is at a high level in terms of the depth of problem formulation and analysis, and the scientific accuracy of interpretation. However, in terms of the scope of research, its scope and material security, we still lag far behind not only France and the United States, where there are well-established and equipped laboratories for applying new methods of historical research (at the Practical School of Higher Studies in Paris, in Marseille, at the Universities of Chicago and Pittsburgh, etc.), but also Sweden. Scientists from these countries have established quite close ties with each other and have established an exchange of information, and they hold special colloquiums. Contacts of Soviet historians with these centers are still being established.

In addition to the methodology, the" big "topic was also highlighted in the section "History of Continents". As we have already mentioned, 2 the very appearance of this section in the programs of recent international congresses is a recognition of the impossibility of studying world history without taking into account the contribution of the peoples of such continents as Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It was also the result of the transformation of former colonial countries into sovereign states, the development of their national culture, including historical science. Strictly speaking, it can hardly be considered correct to include the history of these countries and peoples, previously ignored by international congresses of historical sciences, in a separate section. It seems to me indisputable that in the future the integration of the history of Asian and African countries in the general methodological and chronological sections of international congresses is inevitable. The very emphasis on the "history of continents" still has a certain echo of Eurocentrism in the study of world history. However, maintaining such a section for the coming years is justified for two reasons. First, it allows scientists to focus their attention on the history of these countries, most of which were colonies and semi-colonies for a long period of time.

2 See ibid., pp. 7, 9.

page 8

past and present history raises a number of common problems that are still largely different from those in developed capitalist countries. Secondly, despite the evolution of modern Oriental studies and the growing share of research in Asian and African countries, the specificity of studying sources (especially on ancient and medieval history) and the role of their philological analysis remain, despite the complexity of writing for non-Oriental historians of Eastern languages. These circumstances, as well as the still insufficient participation of national historical organizations of Asian and African countries in the ICIN, lead to the fact that even if the section "history of continents" is included in the programs of the last two international congresses, the proportion of reports on the history of these countries is still small.

Choosing as a" big "topic a problem from the field of "history of continents", IKIN focused on the topic "Nationalism and class struggle in the process of modernization in Asia and Africa". No one can deny its relevance, and it is no accident that it attracts the attention of historians of all countries. The first of the seven reports on this topic, "Nationalism and the Class Struggle" by Professor J. M. Lansdale (Great Britain), which was supposed to be the basis of the discussion, was unfortunately not presented. Other speakers touched on too different - both geographically and chronologically-aspects of the" big " topic, which made the role of experts very difficult. It is difficult to imagine a scholar who could be equally an expert on nationalism and class struggle in China, on the formation of a modern elite in Africa, and on the emancipation of slaves. It is not surprising that a lively discussion between speakers and experts did not work out. Expert presentations and "free" discussion were mainly related to the general characterization of processes and attempts to generalize the phenomena occurring, rather than to the consideration of specific historical problems. The discussion focused on the relationship between nationalism and class struggle at the present stage, the concept of modernization in the Afro-Asian world, and the nature of the modern elite in Africa. Among the components of the " big " topic, we should first mention the report of Professor V. Markov (GDR), which summarized the ways and forms of state formations in Asia and Africa after the Second World War. It is no coincidence that the only representative of Africa at the meeting, Cameroonian Brau, who sharply attacked racism and colonialism, praised the report of V. Markov.

Professor S. Imahori's paper "Nationalism and Class Conflict in China" (Japan) was considerably narrower than its title. The attempt to reveal the correlation between class and nationalist aspects was limited to the chronological period from the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War (1937) to the victory of the Chinese Revolution. In his speech, M. Nakajima (Japan) put forward an essentially Maoist interpretation of Chinese nationalism, which met with well-reasoned criticism from Mongolian and Soviet participants in the discussion. Comparing the discussion at the XIII Congress on the problems of colonialism and the national liberation struggle, the processes taking place in the Afro - Asian world, with the discussion on similar problems in the section "history of continents" at the previous congress, it should be noted that now no one risks openly defending colonialism and its "positive", "progressive"nature. roles in the life of the peoples of Asia and Africa. Meanwhile, in Vienna, some participants in the congress also made an apology for colonialism. Nor did the thirteenth Congress openly attack the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the problems under consideration. As a result, the discussion did not have the character of a sharp clash of views and violent polemics, as it was in Vienna. Somewhat apart was one of the reports of the "big" topic - the report of G. Luti (Seamstress-

page 9

Central Asia), dedicated to the problems of British-Indian history. The speaker, who clearly did not understand the development of the national liberation movement in India and confused it with the position of the extreme right-wing bourgeois-landowner leaders, put forward the position that this movement was ready on the eve of the First World War to enter into an "imperial partnership" with the British colonialists. The report was strongly criticized by the Indian scientist V. B. Singh and Soviet historians E. N. Komarov, G. L. Bondarevsky and others.

A special session on the Continental History section was devoted to the theme "Latin America's place in the world historical process in the 19th and 20th centuries". The main discussion unfolded in connection with the report of G. Calais (Germany) on the issue of guerrilla movements in Latin America in the XIX century. The report was criticized by many Latin American scholars: C. Fugtanellas (Cuba), M. Gonzalez Novarro (Mexico), J. Rodriguez (Uruguay), as well as historians from socialist countries, who showed the importance of guerrilla movements as a legitimate form of national liberation and class struggle of the peoples of this region. According to the report of A. N. Glinkin (USSR) "Latin America and the world historical process in the XIX and XX centuries", the main dispute developed between the speaker and the expert T. Lepkovsky (Poland), who denied the national-bourgeois nature of the war of independence in Latin America in 1816 - 1826. T. Lepkovsky's point of view was not supported by the participants of the discussion. In general, the discussion on Latin American issues, as at previous international congresses, was lively.

The last report in the Continental History section was a report by R. Cook (Canada) entitled" Borders and Metropolises: the Canadian experience", which caused quite a lively exchange of views. Speakers, most of whom were Soviet historians, pointed out the need to apply a comparative method in studying the role of borderlands on different continents. Soviet historians unanimously noted that the successful development of this problem is possible only on the basis of studying the general patterns of development of socio-economic formations. They expressed their disagreement with R. Cook's thesis about the leveling influence of borders, as a result of which there are no pronounced class differences among the border population. In his closing remarks, the speaker agreed with the critical comments.

Let us briefly discuss the "main" topics in the chronological sections of the XIII Congress.

The main topic of ancient history- "The problem of political equilibrium in the Mediterranean countries" - was formulated somewhat vaguely, and the reports that compiled it were not very related to each other. The discussion in the ancient history section was strictly scientific in nature and was distinguished by a high professional level. However, the most interesting discussions unfolded not in connection with the "main" topic, but on "ordinary" reports. In particular, the discussion of the report of Soviet historians S. L. Utchenko and I. M. Dyakonov "Social stratification of ancient society" was very lively, with 14 speakers. The main points of the report were widely supported by both Soviet and a number of foreign scientists. The authors emphasized the novelty of highlighting the problem, analyzing the prerequisites for social stratification, class structure, and the meaning of the class hierarchy.

The" big "topic of the medieval section -" Feudalism as a historical phenomenon, as a social phenomenon and as a mode of production" - consisted of seven reports. This topic received the most complete coverage. A successful combination of theoretical generalizing reports with reports on the peculiarities of the development of feudalism in certain regions-

page 10

Features of Japanese feudalism "by H. Matsuoka (Japan)," Historical ways of development of the feudal system and variants of medieval society" by G. Shekeli (Hungary), " On certain problems of socio-economic development in the countries of South-Eastern Europe in the II-V centuries AD and the transition from antiquity to feudalism"By D. Angelov (Bulgaria)," Social transformations in Central and Eastern Europe in the VI-XII centuries" by G. Lovmyansky (Poland) - provided a lively discussion of experts and numerous participants of free discussion. The central place in the scientific discussion on the "big" topic of the Middle Ages was occupied by the report of Soviet historians Z. V. Udaltsova and E. V. Gutnova (out of 36 participants in the discussion, 34 spoke on the issues raised in this report). The typology of the genesis of feudalism proposed by the speakers from the standpoint of the Marxist-Leninist understanding of it as a socio-economic formation was a serious and fruitful attempt to summarize a huge amount of material and show the course of this process in various regions. The proposed typological scheme was recognized as valuable and promising by the majority of participants in the discussion, who devoted their speeches to clarifying and concretizing this scheme based on the material of Central and Eastern Europe, the Iberian Peninsula, and Byzantium. Some panelists and experts (W. Hollister - USA, Stricker - Vatican, etc.) challenged the Marxist understanding of feudalism put forward in the report as allegedly too "narrow", purely "economic", "schematic" and "outdated". Hollister generally rejected the universal concept of feudalism, claiming that it was a logical abstraction, that one could only speak of a" special feudalism " of each individual country. Numerous participants in the discussion-Marxists, Soviet and foreign, as well as Speakers in their closing remarks, convincingly showed the versatility of the Marxist concept of feudalism and, at the same time, the conditionality of all aspects of this formation, its socio-economic basis, by the feudal mode of production.

The" big "topic of the modern history section -" Problems of Europe in the 17th century " - was presented with six undoubtedly interesting reports on various issues. However, in general, there was no common core, which naturally complicated the general discussion of speakers and experts. Very few points of common ground could be found, for example, between the St report. Skalwait (Germany) "France and the Constitutional conflict in England in the mid-17th century", W. Bowsma (USA) "Secularization of society in the 17th century" and J. A. Gerowski (Poland) "Central Europe in the 17th century and its main trends". Nevertheless, the exchange of views on various problems of the seventeenth century that were not the subject of discussion at previous congresses should be recognized as useful and interesting. In the reports of the "main" topic, Russia was completely left out of consideration. Noting this fact and trying to fill in the gap, some Soviet historians devoted their speeches to the most important events that took place in this century in Russia, and their relationship with the historical processes in Western and Eastern Europe.

The" big "topic in the section of modern history -" Peace in the period between the two World Wars" - consisted of five reports. The sixth report of the program - "The concept and reality of democratization on the example of Germany" by V. Konets (Germany) - was not presented, and the Heidelberg scientist himself was not present at the congress. The main content of the reports was the problems of the socialist movement ("The Socialist Movement in Europe after 1914" by L. Valiani-Italy," Christian Socialism " by R. Ober-Belgium); collective security ("Problems of collective security in the period between the two World Wars" by I. M. Opry and others).

page 11

E. Kampusa-Romania); fascism ("Fascism-varieties of fascism in Central and Eastern Europe" by M. Latsko-Hungary). Sharp discussions were held on all these issues.

When discussing the problems of collective security, some speakers, including speakers, along with correct statements, expressed erroneous opinions, clearly exaggerating the role of "small" countries in the struggle for collective security, the Small and Balkan Entente in the general system of international relations, overestimating the League of Nations. At the same time, some panelists sidestepped the role of the Soviet Union in the struggle for collective security. In the expert discussion, the Soviet scientist acad. V. M. Khvostov reasonably criticized these erroneous propositions. Expert I. Weibul (Denmark) also criticized the position on the leading role of small countries in creating collective security and urged not to consider the events of the 1930s from the perspective of today.

When discussing the problems of the socialist movement, a sharp ideological discussion arose in connection with L. Valiani's report on the following issues: the causes of the split of the labor movement, the role of socialists and communists in this movement. The discussion on the " big "topic echoed the discussion on the" ordinary "report of E. Diehl (GDR)" The world in 1917-1918 " at the section of modern history. This report was made a few days before the " big " report and caused similar disputes, as well as attempts by some scientists (G. Momsen-FRG, etc.) to deny the role of the Great October Socialist Revolution as a turning point in the history of mankind. The nature of the discussion shows that, obviously, it would be more appropriate to include E. Dil's report in the " big " topic.

When discussing the problems of the socialist movement, the Soviet expert academician V. M. Khvostov and the Soviet participants in the free discussion (K. K. Shirinya and others) convincingly challenged the positions of a number of speakers (F. V. Khvostov). Venturi-Italy, Comrade Rafto-Norway, etc.), who tried to justify the leaders of social-democracy, to deny the collapse of the Second International, and to emphasize the shortcomings in the work of the Comintern. Soviet participants in the discussion recalled that it was the Comintern that initiated the creation of a united workers ' and popular front.

A very sharp discussion arose in connection with the discussion of the problems of fascism. Some historians (E. Weber - USA, E. Nolte - Germany) have made an attempt, in essence, to whitewash fascism. Denying that the roots of fascism lie in monopoly capitalism, they argued that fascism was supposedly opposed to both socialism and capitalism. The main critic of such views was the Soviet expert academician V. M. Khvostov, and in the free discussion - also the Soviet historians V. T. Fomin and L. I. Ginsberg. Having sharply criticized theses aimed at justifying fascism, Soviet scientists emphasized that fascism is a product of extreme imperialist reaction directed against socialism, the revolutionary and liberation movement. In a free discussion, they were supported by scientists from Poland and Bulgaria. S. Woolf (Great Britain) in his speech stressed that fascism from the very beginning was anti-communist and anti-socialist and was never part of the left movement. Concluding the meeting with the experts, Chairman K. E. Shorske (USA) expressed solidarity with Academician V. M. Khvostov.

The experience of recent congresses has shown that the Modern history section is invariably the scene of sharp ideological and principled clashes. This is natural and welcome. However, it is regrettable that sometimes the academic nature of disputes is replaced by political and anti-Soviet attacks, as it was,

page 12

for example, in the speech of the West German historian E. Jeckel or T. Rafto (Norway). Of course, such attacks were met with a sharp rebuff from Soviet scientists.

The purpose of this article is not to review all the meetings of the international congress and all the numerous and interesting reports discussed in chronological sections, and even more so at various commissions and committees that worked during the congress. Their detailed analysis has already been made and will continue to be published in the pages of specialized journals, both Soviet ("New and Modern History", "Bulletin of Ancient History", etc.) and foreign. First of all, I would like to focus on the implementation of the new organizational methods introduced by the ICIN at the XIII Congress and their results.

Therefore, I would like to say a few more words about the meetings of the two commissions included in the general program of the congress. Meetings of the International Committee on the History of World War II and the International Commission on the History of Social Movements and Social Structures were entirely devoted to the last day of the Congress. They have attracted the attention of a very large number of historians. 850 people attended the discussion of the problem chosen by the World War II History Committee, "The Working Masses during the Second World War". Four main reports were presented: corresponding member. A. Blum (USA), Dr. D. Petzin (Germany), Dr. A. Eichholz ( GDR) - and co-reports of scientists from Belgium, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, France. Keynote address by M. Gowing (Great Britain) and co-report by Fr. Janacek (Czechoslovakia) was not discussed, as their authors did not arrive at the congress. A lively discussion was attended by 33 people, including 11 from the USSR. The discussion showed the importance and theoretical significance of the topic, many aspects of which are still insufficiently studied. The main issues discussed were the contribution of the working masses of various countries to the victory over fascism, the criteria for assessing this contribution, the participation of the masses in various forms of armed struggle and in military production, and the use of forced labor by the fascist States of the population of occupied countries for military purposes. Soviet military historians who took part in the discussion criticized the attempts of some scholars to consider the economic efforts of belligerent countries in isolation from the nature of the war, the general political and strategic situation, and the course of military operations. Attempts to belittle the role of the Soviet people's efforts in defeating fascism and to exaggerate the role of Western Powers were also criticized. Overall, the discussion was interesting and fruitful.

The Commission on the History of Social Movements and Social Structures, as always, discussed one consolidated report - "Research on peasant movements in the modern world", designed to summarize the work of the commission on this issue between two international congresses. Such a task is fraught with great difficulties. Many issues are left out or barely addressed. The report omitted such important problems as the solution of the agrarian question as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution. The lack of familiarity with the Russian and Soviet historiography of the agrarian question also affected. Speech of the Soviet historian corresponding member. The USSR Academy of Sciences Yu. A. Polyakov was therefore perceived to a large extent as a co-report. A total of 26 people, including six Soviet historians, took part in the discussion, which was friendly in nature and held in a principled scientific tone. The meeting of the commission once again demonstrated the fruitful and progressive nature of its activities.

page 13

Summing up the results of the XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences, we can note with satisfaction that it did not disappoint the expectations of historians, who always consider international congresses as a major event. Many of the reports presented and discussed at it contained new and interesting material. Lively discussions were sometimes very acute, but in general (with the exception of individual attacks, which, as a rule, were not related to the scientific issues being discussed) they were held in a businesslike academic environment. As a result of the discussions, the irreconcilability of the ideological and methodological approaches of Marxist and anti-Marxist historians was revealed, but at the same time the possibility of joint development of specific historical problems, the fruitfulness of exchanging experience in research methods, and in particular the use of the latest mathematical methods, clearly emerged. Evaluating the experience of highlighting "big" and "main" topics, one should undoubtedly recognize the result as positive. It seems appropriate to continue this practice in the future.

However, the experience of the XIII International Congress shows the need to further improve the organization of discussion of these "main" topics. Since their problems were not known in advance to historians of various countries, national committees could not take them into account in their proposals for reports to Congress. The IKIN Bureau, having identified these topics, was forced to compile them from various reports proposed by national committees that were more or less related to the" main " topics. As a result, the individual components, the five or seven reports that made up the "main" topic, were not always sufficiently connected with it, and even more so with each other. Due to the lack of homogeneity of the "main" topic, the discussion did not always focus on its main content, but often went into the discussion of its individual components. This applies not only to free discussion, but also to the discussion of speakers and experts. The position of the latter was sometimes difficult. It is difficult to imagine a scientist who is equally erudite in all the details and aspects of the problems of antiquity, the Middle Ages, or modern and modern history. Therefore, the experts ' presentations were naturally related to any one of the components that made up the "main" topic.

Discussions showed that in cases where the reports that made up the "main" topic were more closely related to its scientific essence and echoed each other, the discussion was more lively and fruitful (the " big "topic on the history of continents, the "main" topic on the section of the Middle Ages). In the future, it will be necessary for the IICB to identify the "big" and "major" topics in advance, even before the National Committees start preparing proposals for reports to the Congress. Knowing the "main" topics in advance, the national Committees could, along with the title of the usual reports for the chronological sections of the congress, think about and propose reports for the "main" topics. By finalizing the "big" and "main" topics based on these proposals, the IKIN could ensure their homogeneity. This would give greater focus to free discussion and expert discussions. The experience when the discussion of a topic begins with an expert discussion should be preserved. However, the organization of the discussion needs to be improved. In addition to the importance of homogeneity of topics with experts, it is necessary to improve the technical side of the expert discussion. In order for their speeches to really have the character of a discussion, and not parallel monologues from the podium, each expert must have a microphone, be able to drop a line at any time, and speak several times during the discussion. Just such a round table of large scientists-specialists on the problems of the "main" topic could also contribute to the correct scientific course of a free discussion.

page 14

The principle of organizing international congresses of historical sciences adopted by the IKIN compares favorably with the organization adopted by most social science congresses. The fact that the total number of reports at the congress and the selection of specific reports from the hundreds proposed by the national Committees is carried out by the ICIN allows, firstly, to reduce the number of reports to a reasonable minimum, and secondly, to ensure that the most interesting proposals are included in the program. Meanwhile, when preparing, for example, Oriental or ethnographic congresses, when the role of international organizations is minimized, the host country is forced to include all submitted applications in the program, regardless of the scientific significance and interest of the proposed reports. As a result, the program often includes more than a thousand different reports and messages, interesting problems are drowned in hundreds of small and highly specialized ones. Genuine scientific discussion, which represents a contribution to the development of science, rarely occurs. Yes, with such a large number of reports, there is essentially no time for discussions. As the experience of international historical congresses, and in particular the last one in Moscow, shows, there are many valuable and significant reports included in the congress program. However, further improvement is also possible here. Without in any way encroaching on the freedom of individual scientists to interpret and interpret the problems and specific historical events they have chosen for their reports, the IKE could develop some general recommendations that help to increase the level and purposefulness of discussions.

In any report, it is important to clearly highlight what the speaker brings to the understanding of the phenomenon under study, whether it is the discovery of sources that allow a new approach to assessing the historical situation or major events, or a reasoned revision of established ideas. To do this, it is advisable to give each report with the necessary brevity (because the volume of the report is inevitably limited to a certain number of pages) first an idea of how this issue is currently being considered in science, what is the general level of scientific ideas achieved, and then what new things the speaker introduces or suggests. If this could be done in all the reports included in the program, the educational value of the reports at the International Congress of Historical Sciences and the scientific depth of discussions would increase immeasurably. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that there are significantly more young scientists, including speakers, at recent congresses. For historians who are beginning their research activities and are present at the congress, such a form of reports would have a particularly great educational and methodological value. Young researchers, who naturally tend to have bold questions and often" rebellious "revision of" conservative " or seemingly so ideas, such a construction of the report would require a more serious argumentation of their positions.

Regarding the program of historical congresses, and in particular the XIII Moscow Congress, I would like to note that not all areas of historical science are sufficiently reflected in it. So, the program did not include any reports related to archeology at all. Meanwhile, it is precisely in recent decades that both the methodology and concrete results of archaeological work are of exceptional interest to historians of various specialties. The results of increasingly extensive archaeological excavations around the world are changing and refining our understanding of the history and social relations of peoples on all continents. Recent excavations in the Indian semi-continent have significantly expanded the understanding of the Mo culture.-

page 15

Henjo-Daro and Harappa and its connections to other Asian cultures. The intensive work of archaeologists from many countries in connection with the construction of the Aswan dam has brought a lot of new things to the study of the history of Egypt and Sudan. Archaeology has expanded our understanding of American history. In the Soviet Union, where up to 200 archaeological expeditions work annually, the results of their activities have led to remarkable discoveries that shed new light on the ancient history of the peoples who lived in the vast expanses of the Soviet Union, on the ancient and medieval history of Russia, on the ancient cultures of Central Asia, Transcaucasia, and Siberia. Ideas about the relations and mutual influences of the peoples of ancient times are expanding more and more. At the same time, the latest methods used in archeology make it one of the most" accurate " branches of historical sciences. It is an important and urgent task to make the results of archaeological research, where joint work of scientists from different countries is becoming increasingly common, the subject of discussion and generalization at the International Congress of Historical Sciences.

While maintaining the inclusion of the results of the work of commissions and affiliated organizations in the main program of the International Congress of Historians, which was implemented for the first time at the XIII Congress, it will be possible to make achievements in many areas of historical science, including auxiliary sciences, the subject of wide discussion at the international forum of historians.

The future prospects of international congresses of historical sciences, despite the fears of skeptics, who are afraid of the ever-increasing volume of these meetings of thousands of historians, seem optimistic. But in order to preserve and strengthen their significance, these forums need to be organized and prepared more carefully and carefully.

page 16


© library.kg

Permanent link to this publication:

https://library.kg/m/articles/view/XIII-INTERNATIONAL-CONGRESS-OF-HISTORICAL-SCIENCES-IN-MOSCOW

Similar publications: LKyrgyzstan LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Elmira IsmailovaContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://library.kg/Ismailova

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

A. A. HUBER, XIII INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF HISTORICAL SCIENCES IN MOSCOW // Bishkek: Library of Kyrgyzstan (LIBRARY.KG). Updated: 12.01.2025. URL: https://library.kg/m/articles/view/XIII-INTERNATIONAL-CONGRESS-OF-HISTORICAL-SCIENCES-IN-MOSCOW (date of access: 09.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - A. A. HUBER:

A. A. HUBER → other publications, search: Libmonster KyrgyzstanLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Elmira Ismailova
Бишкек, Kyrgyzstan
48 views rating
12.01.2025 (28 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
METHODOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS OF HISTORY
8 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
CREATING A VSHV
10 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
TANKOGRAD
11 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
V. M. KURITSYN. DEVELOPMENT OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN THE SOVIET STATE
11 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
MOSKOVSKIE PISHCHEVIKI - TO THE FRONT
11 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
THE RUSSIAN BOURGEOISIE OF THE IMPERIALIST PERIOD IN MODERN AMERICAN AND ENGLISH HISTORIOGRAPHY
11 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
DISCUSSION OF BOOKS IN THE "HISTORY OF THE SOVIET WORKING CLASS"SERIES
Catalog: История 
15 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
Towards the XXVII Congress of the CPSU CHANGES IN THE SOCIAL AND CLASS STRUCTURE OF THE UKRAINIAN SSR AND DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES AT THE STAGE OF DEVELOPED SOCIALISM
Catalog: История 
15 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
SIBERIAN PEASANTRY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM (1917-1937)
16 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
ORGANIZED CRIME AND YOUTH
17 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBRARY.KG - Digital Library of Kyrgyzstan

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

XIII INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF HISTORICAL SCIENCES IN MOSCOW
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: KG LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Kyrgyzstan ® All rights reserved.
2023-2025, LIBRARY.KG is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Kyrgyzstan


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android