Before talking about Soviet historians, it is necessary to say a few words about two authors who are colloquially called "historical novelists." They are providers of “easy reading”, and often, not without talent, tell fascinating stories from the past, with dialogues and props, when their characters either “think, scratching their heads,” or “cough meaningfully,” or whisper something to their beloved woman, so that no one does not hear, except for herself. These authors have nothing to do with historians, but readers read them with enthusiasm. M. Kasvinov’s novel “23 Steps Down” about Nicholas II was written in this style: when the tsar receives Stolypin on a serious state matter in his office, the fireplace is on, the interlocutors are sitting in comfortable armchairs, and the tsarina is in the corner darning the tsar’s socks. N. Yakovlev's novel "August 1, 1914" is somewhat more real. In it we even find something about Freemasonry: the author met the Minister of the Provisional Government N.V. Nekrasov (there is an example of the hero's direct speech); the author gives us to understand that there is also a document, and maybe more than one, with which he has read. But instead of curiosity, the reader begins to vaguely feel a slow surge of boredom: at the moment when N. Yakovlev made his hero speak on the pages of the novel, it turned out that it was not Nekrasov at all, but only Yakovlev himself. In the writings of these feuilleton novelists, it is difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, and the reader is sometimes not entirely sure: did the tsarina really darn the tsar's socks, and Nekrasov did not tell Yakovlev about some of his notes, memoirs and documents, either buried somewhere, or walled up by him. The reader is offered a piece of the past, and he is not averse to learning more about it, even if it is slightly distorted and embellished. It is worse when quotation marks are placed and a quotation begins, which does not end anywhere, since the author forgot to close the quotation marks. “Nekrasov told me a lot of interesting things then,” Yakovlev writes, but does not say when he wrote it down: then? Or in twenty years? Or is he writing from memory? And is it possible to put quotes in this case? Was what began with quotation marks taken from buried material, or something else? The names of close friends of Nekrasov and his brothers in the Masonic lodge are full of mistakes that Nekrasov could not make: instead of Kolyubakin - Kolyubyakin, instead of GrigorovichBarsky - GrigorovichBorsky. Occasionally, Yakovlev explains: "The word is not clear in the document." In what document? And why is this document not described? The conversation between Yakovlev and Shulgin is of no interest: Shulgin was never a Freemason, and Yakovlev was a historian. But not for this, but for other sins, Soviet criticism treated him cruelly. When Soviet historians rightly complain about the paucity of material on Freemasonry,146 and some of them hope that much more can come out, I cannot share their optimism: too much was destroyed during the Red Terror and the Civil War by people who had even a remote connection with the pre-revolutionary Freemasonry in Russia, not to mention the brothers of the secret society themselves. And what was not destroyed then was gradually destroyed in the 1930s, so that after 1938 hardly anything could survive in the attics and cellars. Artist Udaltsova in the early 1930s. in Moscow she herself burned her paintings, and Babel - part of her manuscripts, like Olesha. What more can be said after that? S.I. Bernstein, a contemporary and friend of Tynyanov and Tomashevsky, destroyed his collection of records, slandered by poets in the early 1920s. Bernstein was the first in Russia, then engaged in "orthoepy". Soviet historians do not have the Masonic materials they need, not because they are classified, but because they do not exist. Freemasons did not keep Masonic diaries or write Masonic memoirs. They kept an oath of silence. In the Western world, the protocols of the “sessions” have partially survived (it is possible that the protocols began to be kept only in exile). What is the state of Soviet Freemasonology now? I'll start from afar: two books published by B. Grave in 1926 and 1927, I still find very valuable and significant. These are “On the History of the Class Struggle” and “The Bourgeoisie on the Eve of the February Revolution”. They do not tell us much about Freemasonry, but they give some characteristics (for example, Gvozdeva). These books give an excellent outline of events and some brief but important comments: “Minister Polivanov had connections with the bourgeois opposition”, or a story about the visit of Albert Thomas and Viviani to St. Petersburg in 1916, and how P.P. Ryabushinsky, publisher of the Moscow newspaper "Utro Rossii" and a member of the State Council, informed the French about where the tsarist government was leading Russia (with Rasputins, Yanushkeviches, and other criminals and fools). This happened when everyone gathered in the estate of A.I. Konovalov near Moscow, at secret meetings. Between 1920s. and the work of Academician I. Mintz almost thirty years have passed. Mintz wrote about Freemasonry, which either existed or not, and if it did, it did not play any role. Nevertheless, he quotes the memoirs of I.V. Hessen, where the former leader of the Cadets, a non-Mason, wrote that “Freemasonry has degenerated into a society of mutual assistance, mutual support, in the manner of“ hand washes hand. Fair words. But Mints understands them in such a way that Freemasonry in general was an insignificant phenomenon and skeptically quotes a letter from E. Kuskova, published by Aronson, that the movement "was huge", taking seriously her assertion that "Russian Freemasonry had nothing in common with foreign Freemasonry" ( typical Masonic camouflage and white lies) and that "Russian Freemasonry has abolished the whole ritual". We now know from the minutes of the Masonic sessions that this is all false. Mintz is just as firmly convinced that there never was any "Supreme Council of the Peoples of Russia" and that neither Kerensky nor Nekrasov stood at the head of Russian Freemasonry. Mintz's position is not only to downplay Freemasonry in Russia, but also to ridicule those who think that "something was there." A preconceived position never lends dignity to a historian. Works by A.E. Ioffe is valuable not because he reports on Freemasonry, but because of the background that he gives for it in his book Russo-French Relations (Moscow, 1958). Albert Thomas was going to be appointed "overseer" or "Special Representative" of the Allied Powers over the Russian government in September 1917. Like Mints, he believes that Russian Freemasonry did not play a big role in Russian politics and, citing an article by B. Elkin, calls him Yolkin . In the works of A.V. Ignatiev (1962, 1966 and 1970s) one can find interesting details about the plans of the English Ambassador Buchanan, at the beginning of 1917, to influence the Petrograd Soviet through the English Labor parliamentarians, "our Left", in order to continue the war against "German despotism". He already at that time foresaw that the Bolsheviks would take power. Ignatiev speaks of those who have changed their minds about the continuation of the war, and are slowly and secretly moving to the supporters of "at least some", but if possible, not a separate peace (Nolde, Nabokov, Dobrovolsky, Maklakov). He gives details about Alekseev's negotiations with Tom about the summer offensive and G. Trubetskoy's unwillingness to let Tom into Russia in the summer of 1917: being a Freemason, Trubetskoy perfectly understood the reasons for this persistence of Tom. The Soviet historian is aware of the importance of the meetings of Gen. Knox, the British military attache, with Savinkov and Filonenko in October 1917 - both were in some way allies of Kornilov - and tells, conscious of the hopelessness of the position of the Provisional Government, about the last breakfast on October 23 at Buchanan, where guests were Tereshchenko, Konovalov and Tretyakov. In the same row of serious scientists is E.D. Chermensky. The title of his book, The Fourth Duma and the Overthrow of Tsarism in Russia, does not cover its rich content. True, most of it is devoted to the last convocation and the progressive bloc, but already on page 29 we find a quotation from the verbatim report of the 3rd session of the State. Duma, which shows the mood of Guchkov in 1910: on February 22, he said that his friends "no longer see obstacles that would justify a slowdown in the implementation of civil liberties." Particularly interesting are the descriptions of secret meetings at Konovalov's and Ryabushinsky's, where not all the guests were Freemasons, and where the names of "sympathetic" bureaucratic friends often come across (he does not use the word "rearguard"). The picture of these meetings shows that Moscow was "to the left" of St. Petersburg. He described a conspiratorial meeting at Konovalov's on March 3, 1914, where the participants represented the spectrum from the left Octobrists to the Social Democrats (the owner of the house at that time was Comrade Chairman of the State Duma), and then the second one - on March 4 at Ryabushinsky, where, between by the way, one Bolshevik was present, SkvortsovStepanov (a well-known Soviet critic, about whom there is no information in the KLE). Kadet Astrov reports (TsGAOR, fund 5913) that in August 1914 "all (progressives) stopped fighting and rushed to help the authorities in organizing victory." Apparently, all the conspiracy ceased until August 1915, when the catastrophe began at the front. And then, on August 16, they again gathered at Konovalov's (between others - Maklakov, Ryabushinsky, Kokoshkin) for new conversations. On November 22, both Trudoviks and Mensheviks were in Konovalov's house (Kerensky and Kuskova were among the first). There was one of the first discussions of the "appeal to the allies". Chermensky recalls that the generals were always right there, close, and that Denikin, in his Essays on Russian Troubles, many years later, wrote that “the progressive bloc found sympathy with the gene. Alekseev. At this time, Meller Zakomelsky was the permanent chairman at the meetings of the "progressive bloc" with representatives of Zemgor. Chermensky walks alongside Freemasonry, but today's younger historians, working in Leningrad on the epoch 1905-1918, come even closer to him. Thus, one of them raises the question of "generals" and "military dictatorship" in the summer of 1916, "after the tsar is overthrown." "Protopopov never trusted Ruzsky," he says, and moves on to Guchkov's letter, which was circulating throughout Russian territory, to Prince. P.D. Dolgorukov, who foresaw the victory of Germany back in May 1916. The knowledge of this author can be appreciated by those who carefully delve into the course of his thinking, the thoroughness of his work and the ability to present material of great interest. Among this generation of Soviet historians there are other talented people, significant phenomena on the horizon of Soviet historical science. Many of them have serious knowledge and have found a system for them, some have also been awarded the literary talent of the narrator. They distinguish "important" from "not important" or "less important". They have the flair for the epoch, which our great historians had in the past. They know how important the (unfulfilled) conspiracies were - they give a picture of the Masonic and non-Masonic convergence of people whose parties had no reason to converge with each other, but the members of these parties were able to compromise. This rapprochement and - for some of them - the conciliar vision of the Apocalypse, coming at them with an inevitability from which there is no escape, now evoke in us, as in the tragedy of Sophocles, a sense of horror and fate. We understand today what the tsarist regime was, against which the Grand Dukes and the Menshevik-Marxists went against, for a short time they came into contact, and were crushed together. In one of the recent books we find discussions about Westernism and Slavophilism on a level at which they were never discussed in the sealed retort of the 19th century. The author finds a "chain of traces" (an expression by M.K. Lemke). It leads from the headquarters of the tsar through his generals to the monarchists who want to "preserve the monarchy and remove the monarch", to the centrists of the Duma, and from them to the future military of the Petrograd Soviet. Conversations A.I. Konovalova with Albert Thomas, or an assessment of the gene. Krymov, or a party at Rodzianko's house - these pages are difficult to read without the excitement that we experience when we read tragedians, and which we are not accustomed to experiencing when reading the books of learned historians. Here there is that “creative infection” that Leo Tolstoy wrote about in his famous letter to Strakhov, and which far from all people of art possess. Soviet historians, specialists in the early 20th century, occasionally touch upon Russian Freemasonry in their works. This gives me the right, while working on my book, to think not only about how it will be received and appreciated by young European and American (as well as Russian-American and American-Russian) historians, but also about how it will be read by Soviet historians, who in recent years are increasingly directing their attention towards Russian Freemasons of the 20th century. Read it or hear about it.

The historic victory of the Great October Revolution opened a new era in the history of mankind, it marked the split of the world into two opposite social systems, the beginning of the transition from capitalism to socialism. The liquidation of the old social system and the creation of a qualitatively new system on its ruins were a clear demonstration of the triumph of Marxist-Leninist ideas. From the first years of the existence of Soviet society, the widest possibilities for the development of science were created. “Science has become a national matter, an object of constant concern for the party and the people.” This fully applies to historical science and to one of its constituent parts, historiography.

In the first years after the Great October Socialist Revolution, the number of studies by Soviet authors on the problems of the history of the modern times of the countries of Europe and America was insignificant. Works by bourgeois historians continued to be published, and traces of the impact on some Soviet historians of the right-wing socialist historiography of the Second International were palpable. Under these conditions, Soviet historical science was given the specific and clear task of fighting against the bearers of bourgeois, Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary ideas.

The struggle on the ideological front was led by the party under the leadership of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). An important role was played by Lenin's article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism", published in March 1922 in the journal "Under the Banner of Marxism". It defined tasks in the field of ideological work for an entire historical epoch.

The first Marxist center for research work in the field of social sciences was the Socialist (later Communist) Academy of Social Sciences, founded at the suggestion of V. I. Lenin and in accordance with the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of June 25, 1918. The full members, along with Soviet scientists, included O. V. Kuusinen, K. Liebknecht, R. Luxembourg, Yu.

In the autumn of 1918, a special commission was formed at the academy to consider a long-term plan for publishing (scientific and popular) works of K. Marx. F. Engels, V. I. Lenin. From December 1922, the academy began to publish its own periodical Bulletin of the Socialist Academy (hereinafter referred to as the Bulletin of the Communist Academy), which published a number of materials on the history of modern and contemporary times. In 1929, a sectoral Institute of History was founded within the system of the academy.

Other new research centers were the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels and the Institute of V. I. Lenin. The first of them was organized in January 1921 thanks to the daily care of the party and the personal participation of V. I. Lenin. The Institute collected manuscripts and letters of the founders of Marxism, photocopies of their works that were not in its collections, first editions of works and collections of translations of their works.

The most important tasks were set before the Institute of V. I. Lenin, created on the basis of the decision of the plenum of the Moscow Committee of the RCP (b) of March 31, 1923. The institute became the main center for collecting, publishing and distributing Lenin's works. The XIII Congress of the RCP (b), held after the death of V. I. Lenin, in the resolution “On the work of the Lenin Institute”, noted that huge tasks were put forward for the institute in the field of publishing Lenin’s literary heritage, emphasizing that the communist parties could provide invaluable assistance in their solution foreign countries. As a follow-up to these decisions, Soviet historians launched an enormous amount of work to publish the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism.

An important place in the propaganda of Marxist thought was occupied by the printed organs of the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels - the collection "Archive of K. Marx and F. Engels" (founded in 1924) and "Chronicles of Marxism" (founded in 1926 ). Since 1927, the V. I. Lenin Institute began to publish “Proceedings of the Lenin Institute”.

In 1922, the Russian Association of Research Institutes of Social Sciences (RANION) emerged, which, along with others, included the Institute of History. A number of leading specialists in the history of modern times turned out to be on its staff. One of the main tasks of the institute was to train graduate students. In April 1924, a special institute for the study of international relations and contemporary economic problems was organized - the Institute of World Economy and World Politics. Since 1926, he began to publish his periodical printed organ, World Economy and World Politics, which became the main platform for Soviet economists and historians who studied the problems of the world economy and international relations of modern times.

By organizing research centers for historical science, the Communist Party and the Soviet government also solved the problem of radically restructuring the system of teaching in higher educational institutions and creating qualitatively new educational institutions and highly qualified personnel in the social sciences. To this end, for the training of "working teachers and working professors", the Marxism Courses at the Communist Academy, the Institute of Red Professors (IKP), organized in February 1921 in Moscow on the basis of a government decree signed by V. I. Lenin, began to function. Faculties of social sciences (FONs) were formed at the largest universities in the country.

To restructure the system of higher education, a consistent and purposeful refutation of the anti-Marxist concepts of the world-historical process was also necessary. Bourgeois scholars of the liberal school—N. I. Kareev, E. V. Tarle, and some others—continued to retain considerable influence in the field of studying and propagating the history of modern times in the countries of the West even after the October Revolution. Their activity was expressed, in particular, in the publication of tendentiously compiled collections of documents, historiographical works, as well as other works, methodologically very far from Marxism. For this purpose, the Annaly magazine, published in 1922-1924, was also widely used. edited by E. V. Tarle and F. I. Uspensky. However, under the influence of Soviet reality, a number of prominent scientists, including E. V. Tarle, N. I. Kareev, embarked on the path of revising their previous historical views. By the end of the 1920s, bourgeois historiography had suffered a complete defeat. The appearance of the works of I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, N. M. Lukin, F. A. Rotshtein, V. P. Volgin, V. A. Bystryansky and others testified to the strengthening of positions and the further growth of the fruitful direction of Marxist research. Its representatives were historians who combined scientific and pedagogical activities with participation in the proletarian movement and, even in the pre-revolutionary period, were engaged in the development of problems in the history of modern times.

Since 1925, the Society of Marxist Historians began to function, and since 1926 its organ "Historian-Marxist" began to appear. The first All-Union Conference of Marxist Historians, held on December 28, 1928 - January 4, 1929, contributed to a number of discussions, a significant part of which was directly devoted to the problems of modern and contemporary history2. They showed certain (although by no means on all the issues discussed) achievements of Soviet historians of the West in the struggle against various bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and reformist concepts directed against the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the historical process.

The desire to knock the ground out from under the feet of idealist historians as quickly as possible, and at the same time the shortage of methodologically trained higher education teachers and teachers, which was acutely felt in the 1920s, was one of the reasons for the temporary replacement of the history course in the secondary school curriculum by the social science course. This decision slowed down the training of cadres of is-riks.

In the 1930s, Soviet historical science achieved significant success in working out the most important problems of socio-economic history in modern and contemporary times. In the mid-1930s, resolutions and decisions of the Council of People's Commissars were adopted. USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Committee of the Bolsheviks) on the teaching of historical disciplines in secondary and higher schools, which were also directly related to research institutions. In 1934, the teaching of civil history was introduced in higher educational institutions, and history faculties were created at Moscow, Leningrad, and other universities in the country. And earlier (1931), the Moscow Institute of Philosophy and History (MEPhI) was founded - later the Moscow Institute of History, Philosophy and Literature (MIFLI), which, together with a similar institute in Leningrad (LIFLI), over the course of ten years trained a significant number of certified historians, in particular and modern times.

In 1936, on the basis of the Institute of History of the Communist Academy, after its transfer to the Academy of Sciences, the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences was established. As a result of the measures taken, the number of monographs and collective works, including those on modern and contemporary history, has increased significantly. Of great importance was the organization of new periodicals (The Struggle of Classes, Historical Collection, etc.), in which this problem was widely presented.

The attention of modern and contemporary historians was directed to the preparation of textbooks and teaching aids for higher and secondary schools. A certain role in shaping the concept of the historical process in the period of modern times was played by individual lectures, and then a course of lectures delivered at the Higher School of Propaganda. Ya. M. Sverdlov and at the Higher Party School under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. The scheme developed by A. V. Efimov and I. S. Galkin was basically adopted in all textbooks and teaching aids on the history of modern times published in subsequent years.

In 1939, a textbook on the new history for universities was published in two parts, edited by E. V. Tarle, A. V. Efimov, and others. In 1940, a textbook on the new history of colonial and dependent countries appeared. It was the first attempt to give a generalized Marxist characterization of the history of the countries of Central and South America. For a number of years these textbooks were the main guide for Soviet students. A few years earlier, collections of documents on modern history were published for students of higher educational institutions.

Since 1928, Soviet historians have been involved in the work of the International Association of Historians. In August, they took part in the VI International Congress of Historians in Oslo. Assessing this speech by Soviet scientists at an international forum, the head of the delegation, M. N. Pokrovsky, noted that it was the first intelligence in a completely new area.

The participation of Soviet historians in the 7th International Congress of Historians in Warsaw (August 1933) was also successful. At it, the Soviet delegates V. P. Volgin, N. M. Lukin, P. F. Preobrazhensky made presentations on modern history. Of great fundamental importance were also the speeches of Lukin and Volgin in the section on methodology and theory of history, where Soviet scientists opposed the platform of historical materialism to the "idealistic chaos" that reigned, in Volgin's figurative expression, among bourgeois historians.

In 1938, another international congress was to be held in Zurich. But Soviet scientists did not have to take part in it. The difficult situation in the prewar years and the Second World War that began in 1939 slowed down the development of international contacts between Soviet historians for a long time. However, even during this extremely tense period of the late 1930s, Soviet historiography continued to wage a resolute struggle against all attempts to distort the historical process that came from representatives of foreign bourgeois historiography. Naturally, the decisive blow was directed against the main enemy - German fascism and its ideology. In a number of works published at that time, the falsifying methods of Hitler's "historians" were consistently exposed. The informative collection of articles “Against the Fascist Falsification of History” played an important role, in which, based on the analysis of a large amount of factual material, F.I. Notovich and other authors revealed the essence, methods and world war, the true nature of fascist geopolitics, the long-standing predatory tendencies of German militarism, etc.

During the years of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union against the fascist invaders, many brochures and documentary collections were published, which exposed the historical roots of the aggressive policy of German militarism in the Middle Ages, modern and recent times, exposed the aggressive plans of Prussia and Germany over many decades, talked about the combat traditions of freedom-loving peoples.

The largest number of studies by Soviet historians was devoted primarily to the problem of bourgeois revolutions. The logic of the first post-October years was such that it was in the study of the experience of the revolutions of the past (in the first place), and then the history of the labor, socialist and communist movement, and, finally, in the economic history and the history of modern international relations, the authors saw the target task of the works they created. At the same time, such an approach could not but lead to the formation of significant gaps in the field of knowledge of world history, from which domestic political and cultural topics were almost completely removed.

One of them was the book by A. E. Kudryavtsev "The Great English Revolution" (1925). A valuable contribution to the development of little-studied agrarian history was made by the study by S. I. Arkhangelsky (1882-1958) “Agrarian legislation of the Great English Revolution” (2 hours, 1935-1940). It was in the agrarian legislation of the 1940s and 1950s that he found an explanation for the shifts that England had made on the path of capitalist development. The study by Soviet historians of the most important problems of the English Revolution, which became especially active in the second half of the 1930s, contributed to the creation of the collective work The English Bourgeois Revolution of the 17th Century, which was largely prepared on the eve of the Great Patriotic War and was to be included as one of the volumes in 28-volume "World History", but was published only in 1954.

Soviet historians studied the Great French bourgeois revolution at the end of the 18th volume with particular attention. N. M. Lukin (1885-1940) was the first to start studying it on the basis of primary sources. His book "Maximilian Robespierre" was repeatedly reprinted. It contained an outline of the history of the revolution and an attempt was made to show the significance of its Jacobin stage. Among the problems that revealed the essence of this stage, Soviet historical science paid special attention to the movement of the "mad". Bourgeois historiography distorted or, at best, hushed up all questions connected with the actions of this very left revolutionary grouping, which expressed the interests of the plebeian masses and the pre-proletariat. The Soviet historian J. M. Zakher published a monograph on the "mad" (1930), but did not avoid a number of serious mistakes, primarily related to the fact that he was a prisoner of the concepts of J. Zhores, G. Kunov and N. I. Kareev. The Thermidorian revolution also aroused the interest of Soviet science, which contributed to the appearance of two serious works on it by P. P. Shchegolev and K. P. Dobrolyubsky. A great contribution to the study of the popular movements of the Germinal and Prairial in 1795 was made by E. V. Tarle (1874-1955), who for a number of years studied the materials of the Paris National Archives, which formed the basis of his outstanding Marxist monograph Germinal and Prairial (1937).

The successes of Soviet science in the study of the history of socio-political ideas are associated primarily with the name of V. P. Volgin. His study "Social and Political Ideas in France before the Revolution (1748-1789)", published in 1940, gives a complete picture of the development of socio-political thought in France in the second half of the 18th century.

These works largely prepared the appearance of the generalizing collective work of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences “The French Bourgeois Revolution. 1789-1794 ”(1941), which has not lost its significance even now. The monograph introduced into scientific circulation many unpublished archival documents on Russian-French relations on the eve and during the years of the revolution. In analyzing the characteristics of the class struggle during the period of the revolution, the team of authors, revealing the difference between the bourgeois and socialist revolutions, at the same time showed the profoundly democratic character of the Great French Revolution.

By the mid-1930s, the Marxist-Leninist school of historians of the French Revolution of 1789-1794 had taken shape in the USSR. In a short time, she created a lot of valuable research in this area.

Paying special attention to the Great French bourgeois revolution, Soviet historiography also turned to the study of bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the first half of the 19th century. Much new about the revolution of 1848 was contained in the studies of A. I. Molok (for example, “June days. An outline of the history of the uprising of the Paris workers on June 23-26, 1848”, 1933), based on materials from the French National Archives.

One of the central topics in Soviet historiography was the theme of the Paris Commune of 1871. Already in the first post-October years, a number of authors created works of a scientific and popular science nature about it. I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov addressed the consideration of tactical questions of the history of the Commune. He paid special attention to cardinal problems: the hegemonic class in the revolution, the role of the mass movement, etc. Of the works of Molok, the monograph on the German intervention against the Commune (1939) was of particular importance - on a topic that had previously been almost not studied in Soviet historiography. On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the emergence of the first government of the working class in France, a generalizing work by the prominent Soviet historian and statesman P. M. Kerzhentsev “History of the Paris Commune of 1871” was published. (1940). Available to various categories of readers, it is based on primary sources and a wide range of literature.

In the study of the history of the Paris Commune, Soviet historiography by the beginning of the 1940s had made serious progress.

The assimilation of Marxist-Leninist methodology by Soviet scientists required a deep analysis of the historical sources and components of Marxism. In addition, it was precisely in the field of studying the history of socialist ideas that Soviet science already had Marxist-trained personnel at its disposal, and V. P. Volgin (1879-1962) belonged to them. In 1923, his Essays on the History of Socialism were published, which included Volgin's works on Mellier and Morelli and on the creators of the egalitarian theories of the 18th century. - Rousseau, Mably, about the ideological heritage of Babouvism, about Saint-Simon, etc. This was the first attempt in Soviet Marxist historiography to highlight the most important stages in the development of socialist thought until the middle of the 19th century. Soon Volgin published a general university course on the History of Socialist Ideas (2 hours, 1928-1931) from the origin of elements of socialism in the ancient world to the 1940s.

In 1920, in accordance with the Decree of the IX Congress of the RCP (b), work began on the release of the first 20-volume edition of the Works of V. I. Lenin, completed in 1926. It included works, mostly previously published. A new stage in the study of Lenin's scientific heritage began after the organization of the V. I. Lenin Institute. The Institute began publishing the complete works of V. I. Lenin, as well as works devoted to his life and work. By decision of the II Congress of Soviets of the USSR and the XIII Party Congress in 1925-1932. The institute issued a 30-volume second and third (identical) editions of the Works of V. I. Lenin, which included 1265 of his previously unpublished works.

In 1928, the first scientific edition of the Works of K. Marx and F. Engels began to appear in Russian in 29 volumes. At the same time, the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels began preparing an international 40-volume edition of their works in the original language - Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA).

An important place in Soviet historiography was occupied by literature on the creation of the First International by K. Marx and F. Engels, their role in directing its activities, and their relationship with the Paris Commune. In the 1930s, the publication of the documents of the Basel Congress and the London Conference of the First International began. A number of works by Soviet historians revealed the struggle of Marx and Engels against the opportunist currents in the First International (Proudhonism, Lassalianism, Bakuninism). The development of social science One of the most important areas in the study of economics in modern and recent times was econo-torii. The working and somic history of foreign countries and the massist movement of workers, as well as the growth of the workers' and socialist movement in the 19th - early 20th centuries.

A special study was made of the history of the industrial and agrarian revolution in European countries in the works of F.V. XVIII and early XIX centuries”, 1935), as well as in the USA in the book by A. V. Efimov (1896-1971) “On the history of capitalism in the USA” (1934). Efimov's work showed the groundlessness of the assertions of bourgeois historians about the "exclusivity" of the development of the United States.

During the period under review, Soviet historiography has not yet succeeded in recreating a complete picture of the history of the workers' and socialist movement in modern times, but attention to this issue has increased. A series of works by Soviet historians devoted to this stage in the history of the international working-class movement appeared in the years when a sharp ideological and political struggle was unfolding in the CPSU (b) and foreign sections of the Communist International against the Trotskyists and other anti-Leninist groups and trends. It is known that not only the Mensheviks, but also L. Trotsky, G. Zinoviev and L. Kamenev in 1917 believed that Russia was not ripe for a socialist revolution3. Trotskyism "sowed disbelief in the strength of the working class of the USSR, arguing that without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in the West, the victory of socialism in our country is impossible" 4.

These views were directly or indirectly reflected in the works of some historians, which manifested itself, in particular, in underestimating the forces of the socialist revolution in our country, in belittling the role of Bolshevism in the international arena, in exaggerating the theoretical and tactical maturity of the German Left Social Democrats, and downplaying the opportunism of a number of leaders. Second International, etc. In 1930, these false concepts found their expression in the speeches and article by A. Slutsky "The Bolsheviks on the German Social Democracy in the period of its pre-war crisis." Marxist historians gave a decisive rebuff to the attempts of the Trotskyist revision of the history of Bolshevism.

The problems of the history of the Second International were studied in the work of G. S. Seidel “Essays on the history of the Second International, 1889-1914” (1 vol., 1930), where a description was given of the main stages of its development, as well as its organizational and theoretical principles. The author assigned a significant place to the history of German social democracy. At the same time, he belittled the international role of Bolshevism and exaggerated the maturity of left-wing groups in Western European social democratic parties. Seidel's mistakes have been criticized.

Soviet historians paid considerable attention to the international significance of the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907, which enriched the world revolutionary movement with the most valuable experience. Their articles showed the tremendous impact of the revolutionary events in Russia on the foreign mass movement of working people and the activities of the Second International, whose opportunist leaders hushed up the first in history people's bourgeois-democratic revolution of the era of imperialism or regarded it as a purely Russian phenomenon.

On October 26, 1917, in his “Report on Peace” at a meeting of the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets, V. I. Lenin declared that the Soviet government was proceeding “... immediately to the full publication of secret agreements confirmed or concluded by the government of landowners and capitalists from February to October 25, 1917.5 This exposure of secret diplomacy soon began with the publication of the Collection of Secret Documents from the Archives of the Former Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1917-1918), carried out under the direction of N. G. Markin.

A significant stimulus to the deepening of the study of the history of foreign policy was the beginning of the publication (since 1931) of the multi-volume publication of diplomatic documents "International Relations in the Era of Imperialism." Documents from the archives of the tsarist and Provisional governments. 1878-1917. Series 3, 1914-1917; Series 2, 1900-1913 (1931 - 1940). Built according to the chronological principle, it met the highest requirements of specialist researchers and, in its completeness and scientific objectivity, differed sharply from similar editions of diplomatic documents undertaken by bourgeois governments. M. N. Pokrovsky (1868-1932) had a great merit in organizing publishing activity in the field of the history of international relations.

Soviet historians created a number of works on the emergence of militaristic blocs that prepared the first world imperialist war. historiography of works in this area.Based on many unpublished archival materials, the author highlighted Russia's relations with Germany and Austria-Hungary in connection with the Eastern Question in the 80s of the XIX century.A lot of space in the monograph is devoted to Bismarck's policy towards Russia.

For a number of years, under the influence of the erroneous concept of M. N. Pokrovsky, who denied the progressive nature of the Patriotic War of 1812, Soviet historiography (with rare exceptions) ignored the study of this most important topic. But in the second half of the 1930s the situation changed. Returning to his pre-revolutionary themes, E. V. Tarle created generalizing works about Napoleon and his invasion of Russia. E. V. Tarle's book "Napoleon" (1936), written largely as an antithesis to the numerous writings of bourgeois historians-A. Thiers, A. Sorel, A. Vandal and others, was an outstanding artistic and historical work. Based on the analysis of a huge amount of factual material, the author showed how, as a result of the selfless courage of the Russian people, Napoleon's plans to establish world domination collapsed. To an even greater extent, this thesis was reflected in Tarle's second book Napoleon's Invasion of Russia (1938).

E. V. Tarle also owns the fundamental work “The Crimean War” (2 vols., 1941-1943). Using a huge archival and printed material, the author showed a complex tangle of international contradictions that had matured in Europe and Asia Minor by the middle of the 19th century.

The achievements of Soviet historiography in the field of studying the problems of modern international relations were summed up in the History of Diplomacy (vol. 1, 1941; vol. 2, 1945), published in the Foreign Policy Library series.

Thus, considering the historical literature of the 20-40s on the history of international relations of modern times, we can conclude that this topic attracted the closest attention of Soviet historiography. Making extensive use of previously inaccessible archival funds, Soviet scientists created a number of original studies that have not lost their significance to this day.

The complexity of the international situation, the powerful scope of the mass labor movement and the growth under the influence of the victory of the Great October Communist Parties in the capitalist countries, the further strengthening of the national liberation movement of the peoples of the colonial and dependent countries, the aggravation of contradictions between the capitalist states, the activation of extreme right elements in a number of imperialist powers of Europe and America, which ultimately led to the establishment of a fascist dictatorship in Italy, Germany and Spain, the struggle of the Soviet Union for peace and disarmament, its attempts to curb the aggressors - all these events that characterized the course of modern history have been reflected in historical research.

At first, many works on modern history were journalistic in nature. Some of them have not stood the test of time. However, contrary to the thesis widespread in bourgeois historiography about the legitimacy of studying only events relatively far removed from the present, Soviet historical science, relying on the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and their vast experience in this regard, convincingly proved the possibility of such scientific research.

Already in the 1920s, the main lines of study of recent history began to be outlined. The focus was on the issues of the international labor movement and the class struggle in the capitalist countries, the history of international relations and, to a small extent, the domestic politics of foreign states.

The greatest attention of Soviet historiography was attracted by the revolutionary events in Germany in 1918-1919 and 1923. The works of this cycle include A. M. Pankratova’s book Factory Factory Committees in the German Revolution (1924) and K. I. Shelavin’s research on the German Revolution of 1918-1919 based on the extensive use of the German press, brochures, and memoirs. "Vanguard battles of the Western European proletariat" (2 hours, 1929-1930). On the whole, however, these works lacked a correct understanding of the nature of the November Revolution of 1918 in Germany as a bourgeois one. The authors, proceeding from an incorrect premise, considered it to be proletarian.

One of the central places in modern Soviet historiography has been occupied by the study of the problem of fascism. Already in the 1920s, the fascist coup in Italy and the putsch attempts by the German fascists caused the appearance of works that tried to reveal the reasons for the increased fascist danger, as well as the extremely reactionary aspirations of various social groups in the capitalist countries.

Several books about Italian fascism - "Fascism" (2 hours, 1923), "The Decline of Fascism" (1925), etc. - were published by G. B. Sandomirsky. The works were distinguished by liveliness of presentation, were based on the personal impressions of the author, however, they were not a scientific study of the problem and contained many erroneous theses (primarily a forecast about the imminent collapse of Italian fascism).

Among the works devoted to the modern history of England, the book by A. V. Lepeshinskaya “The English General Strike of 1926” stood out. (1930), where its causes and course are examined.

In the 1930s, much attention was paid to the international labor movement, the economy of the capitalist countries, the class struggle of the proletariat, and other topics.

The most valuable source on the history of the international communist movement was the verbatim records of the congresses of the Communist International and the materials of the plenums of its Executive Committee. Documents were published: "The Bolshevik Struggle for the Creation of the Communist International" (1934) and "Post-war capitalism in the coverage of the Comintern" (1932). In the first half of the 1930s, the publication of the main decisions of the Comintern, The Communist International in Documents (1933), for the first 13 years of its existence, was undertaken.

The serious attention of Soviet historians to the development of the international communist and workers' movement led to the appearance of works that critically examined the activities of the Second International in the post-war period of its existence. However, the dogmatically perceived position that social democracy is objectively a moderate wing of fascism, as well as the term “social fascism” that was in circulation in those years, led some historians away from the scientific formulation and resolution of this problem.

Among the problems of the class struggle, the question of assessing its nature in the United States of America was of fundamental importance, since the propaganda of "American exceptionalism", which found support among the Trotskyists of the USA and other countries, also influenced historical science. This manifested itself, in particular, in the attempts of some authors to prove the alleged special position of the American workers in comparison with the proletariat of other countries. However, such trends were not typical of the general line of research by Soviet scientists on this issue. The most significant among this series of works is V. I. Lap's book Classes and Parties in the USA (1932; ed. 2, 1937).

The analysis of one of the aspects of the "new course" was devoted to the study by S. A. Dalin "Economic policy of Roosevelt" (1936).

The attention of specialists in the history of modern times was attracted by processes that were taking place in other countries as well. The seizure of power by German fascism led to the appearance, although at first not so extensive, of literature on this topic, for example, the work "German fascism in power" (1934). In a significant part of it there was a clear underestimation of the fascist danger6. Soviet scientists immediately responded to the events of the Spanish revolution of the 1930s and to the struggle of the Spanish people against the fascist rebels and the German-Italian interventionists. Collections of speeches and articles by the leaders of the Communist Party of Spain - José Diaz and Dolores Ibarruri, as well as military operations on the course of the armed struggle in the country were published.

E. S. Varga, who published many works on these issues, has long been engaged in the analysis of the general problems of imperialism, the study of the economic situation and crises, the study of economic relations between the imperialist countries and their policy towards the USSR. Of great fundamental importance was his criticism of the theory of "super-imperialism", to which he counterposed the law of the uneven development of capitalism.

Various issues of modern international relations were studied by LN Ivanov (1903-1957). He studied the relations between the imperialist powers, their maritime rivalry, the activities of various international organizations, and questions of disarmament (1964).

During the Second World War, Soviet historians completed and published the fundamental study "History of the Civil War in the USSR" (vol. 2), which reveals the world-historical significance of the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the defeat of imperialist intervention in Soviet Russia. A major scientific and theoretical phenomenon in modern historiography was the publication of The History of Diplomacy (vol. 3, 1945). The socio-political significance of this collective work was enormous. It convincingly shows the grave consequences of the policy of "appeasement" of the aggressors, concessions and collusion with them, which was pursued by the governments of Britain, France and the United States, who hoped to direct fascist aggression towards the USSR and did not want to create a united front of democratic countries against the warmongers. The great merit of the authors was the coverage of the struggle of the USSR for peace, its desire to fulfill its obligations regarding collective security and counteraction to aggressors.

During the war years, N. M. Druzhinin, F. V. Potemkin, V. M. Khvostov and others created works that popularized the heroic struggle of the Russian people against foreign invaders.

The forward movement of Soviet historiography of modern and contemporary times encountered many difficulties on its way, but a deep faith in the triumph of Lenin's ideas inspired Soviet historians. Having created by the end of the period under review a number of major monographic and collective works, textbooks and teaching aids, Soviet historiography of the 1930s and 1940s paved the way for further success in the development of this branch of historical knowledge.

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

First chronicles

While there was no written language, historical knowledge was passed from mouth to mouth. And such legends existed among different peoples.

When writing appeared, events began to be recorded in chronicles. Experts believe that the first sources date back to the X-XI centuries. Older writings have not been preserved.

The first surviving chronicle belongs to the pen of the monk of the Kiev-Pechora monastery Nikon. The most complete work created by Nestor is The Tale of Bygone Years (1113).

Later, the Chronograph appeared, compiled by the monk Philotheus at the end of the 15th-beginning of the 16th century. The document provides an overview of world history and outlines the role of Moscow in particular and Russia in general.

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

The Emergence of History as a Science: Vasily Tatishchev

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

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

In his work, Tatishchev established the cause-and-effect relationships of the events taking place, relying on the annals. The thinker is rightfully considered the ancestor of Russian history.

Mikhail Shcherbatov

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

Shcherbatov was born into a wealthy noble family. This man possessed encyclopedic knowledge. He created the "History of Russia from ancient times."

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

The history of Shcherbatov was not in demand among his contemporaries. Catherine II considered him completely devoid of talent.

Nikolai Karamzin

Karamzin occupies a leading position among Russian historians. The writer's interest in science was formed in 1790. Alexander I appointed him a historiographer.

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

The main idea of ​​Karamzin's "History" was reliance on autocracy. The historian concluded that only with the strong power of the monarch, the country prospers, and with its weakening, it falls into decline.

Konstantin Aksakov

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

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

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

Nikolai Kostomarov

Another figure from among the historians of Russia, who worked in the 19th century. He was a friend of Taras Shevchenko, had an acquaintance with Nikolai Chernyshevsky. He worked as a professor at Kiev University. He published "Russian history in the biographies of its leaders" in several volumes.

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

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

Sergei Solovyov

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

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

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

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

Vasily Klyuchevsky

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

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

Klyuchevsky studied the essence of the complex relations between peasants and landowners, and attached great importance to this thought. Klyuchevsky's ideas were accompanied by criticism, however, the historian did not enter into polemics on these topics. He said that he expresses his subjective opinion on many issues.

On the pages of the Course, Klyuchevsky gave many brilliant characteristics and key moments in Russian history.

Sergei Platonov

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

Platonov developed the ideas of Sergei Solovyov about the opposition of the tribal and state principles in the development of Russia. He saw the cause of modern misfortunes in the coming to power of the nobility.

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

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

Nowadays

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

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

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

1. Forgotten war.
I don't know who forgot about it. Almost any Soviet history textbook that touched on the history of the early 20th century, and in particular the prerequisites for the revolution, considered it its duty to highlight the issue of the First World War. This war was always characterized as imperialist, the forces of the side, the motives, the course and outcome of this war were covered, including for Russia, where it was positioned as one of the main prerequisites for the revolution. In addition to officialdom, already in Soviet times, many books were written on the deeper aspects of this war - strategy, tactics, operational art, economics. Many of these works were written by direct participants in this war. These works themselves partially formed the basis of the official Soviet historiography of that period. Moreover, if you now peer into the bibliography of modern works on the topic of the First World War, then there you can easily find a lot of references to sources originally from the USSR, where they hid the TRUTH (for example, read the bibliography here http://militera.lib.ru/h /utkin2/app.html). So to say that someone forgot about that war can only be a militant ignoramus, unfamiliar not only with the Soviet, but even with the post-Soviet historiography of the issue.
Of course, they didn’t trumpet it at every turn and didn’t erect monuments to the right and left, which is, in principle, logical, since the war for Russia was lost miserably, and the state that started it did not even reach capitulation, but simply disappeared from the world map for half a year to Brest. Well, it's common practice. For example, it would never occur to anyone now to pompously celebrate the anniversaries of the beginning and end of the shameful First Chechen War and erect monuments, say, in honor of the Khasavyurt agreements.

2. Romantic war.
Actually, the First World War was the first war that completely turned the destruction of people into an industrial mainstream. If the Anglo-Boer War and the Russo-Japanese, already carrying an industrial character, still retained the features of "chivalry", then the First World War dispelled all these illusions already during the first weeks of the war, when the monstrous losses of the parties during the Battle of the Border in France, East -The Prussian operation and the Battle of Galicia, clearly revealed the difference between this war and all others. But that was only the beginning. I will not quote Takman, who perfectly opened this topic.
Separate episodes with a "chivalrous" attitude towards the enemy could also occur during the Second World War and even on the Eastern Front. But these were only minor episodes that did not cancel, as in the First World War, the nature of the war to destroy the enemy by any means with ever-increasing bitterness.

3. Insidious Soviet historians divided the heroes of the First World War into Reds and Whites.
What a discovery, it turns out that it was not the parties that were so divided in the course of the political and armed struggle for power in Russia, but the insidious Soviet historians took it and artificially divided it into Reds and Whites. Here are the bastards. It remains a mystery - how it was necessary to divide correctly and whether it was possible not to divide, the authors of the report are silent.
You can immediately see the seasoned "historical" approach.

4. In the USSR, the exploits of the heroes of the First World War were hushed up and they were embarrassed to talk about the past in the tsarist army.
Here I don’t even take the most famous photographs, such as the Cossack hero of the USSR and the full Knight of St. George, and I don’t even give a photo of Budyonny with crosses.
The very fact of service in the tsarist army was indicated in an elementary way in the questionnaires, and especially honored figures were even officially commemorated in the press and historical literature. The most striking example is Marshal Shaposhnikov, who was constantly mentioned in Soviet sources as a professional general staff officer of the old school. In the official biography of Zhukov, his participation in the First World War, albeit briefly, but went on as a separate chapter of his life.
Actually, here, as in the case of sources on the First World War, there is a typical substitution - the lack of popularization by silence.

5. About graves.
Regarding the issue of graves, it is worth remembering that most of the burial places of the soldiers of the First World War were located on the territory of Poland, Western Belarus, Western Ukraine and the Baltic states, which for the most part were controlled by non-Bolsheviks at least until 1939-1940. And then, for well-known reasons, it was clearly not up to the graves. Since 1991, most of the territories where soldiers of the first imperialist war died also do not belong to Russia. Therefore, the current deplorable state with the graves of the soldiers of the First World War was objectively inevitable, even against the backdrop of all the problems with the search and burial of soldiers of the Great Patriotic War.

In general, the report is a classic continuation of the line of creating a stir around the "forgotten history of the RKMP", which, in fact, is forgotten only by the ignoramuses who are not familiar with the developments of Soviet historiography on this issue.

The First World War was by no means forgotten, it was more or less regularly commemorated, without any pomp and romanticization, as befits lost wars. A number of heroes of the First World War found themselves in the Red Army and continued to serve the now socialist Motherland, some of them also fought on the fronts of the Second World War.

Is it necessary to carry out work to restore the burials that have survived to this day? Of course it is necessary. The imperialist nature of the war does not change the fact that masses of people were killed for the interests of the instigators of this war, and among these millions killed, there were those who demonstrated miracles of military prowess. These heroes should also be remembered, just as we remember the heroes of other wars we lost, the same Russian-Japanese war.
Well, in this case, we see how these people are used for a rotten ideological campaign of an anti-Soviet nature. Oh, those Soviet historians, their silence about the crunch of a French roll was total.

Historiography is a special historical discipline that studies the history of historical science as a complex, multifaceted and contradictory process and its patterns.

The subject of historiography is the history of historical science.

Historiography solves the following tasks:

1) the study of the patterns of change and the approval of historical concepts and their analysis. Under the historical concept is understood the system of views of one historian or group of scientists both on the entire course of historical development as a whole, and on its various problems and aspects;

2) analysis of the theoretical and methodological principles of various trends in historical science and the elucidation of the patterns of their change and struggle;

3) study of the process of accumulation of factual knowledge about human society:

4) the study of the objective conditions for the development of historical science.

The history of historical science in our country begins in the period of the existence of Ancient Russia. Until the end of the XVI century. chronicles were the main type of historical writings.

The Tale of Bygone Years (I quarter of the 12th century) served as the basis for most of the chronicles. The most valuable lists are the Lavrentiev, Ipatiev and First Novgorod chronicles. Since the 18th century, the authorship of The Tale of Bygone Years has been attributed to the monk Nestor, but at present this point of view is not the only one and is being questioned.

During the period of feudal fragmentation, chronicles were kept in most major principalities and centers.

With the creation of a single state at the turn of the XV - XVI centuries. the chronicle acquires an official state character. Historical literature follows the path of creating works of grand scale and magnificent forms (the Resurrection Chronicle, the Nikon Chronicle, the Facial Code of Ivan the Terrible).

In the 17th century historical novels, chronographs and power books are approved. In 1672, the first textbook on Russian history "Synopsis" by I. Gizel was published. The word "synopsis" means "general view". In 1692, I. Lyzlov completed his work "Scythian History".

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750) is considered the father of Russian historical science. He was not a professional historian, he came from a seedy family of Smolensk nobles, but, thanks to his abilities, he made a public career under Peter I. Tatishchev participated in the Northern War, carried out diplomatic missions, led the mining industry of the Urals (1720 - 1721, 1734 - 1737) , was the Astrakhan governor. But for a significant part of his life, in parallel with state activity, Tatishchev collected historical sources, described them and systematized them. times" in 5 books was published in 1768 - 1848. In this essay, the author gave a general periodization of the history of Russia, identified three periods: 1) 862 - 1238; 2) 1238 - 1462; 3) 1462 -1577. Tatishchev associated the development of history with the activities of rulers (princes, kings). He sought to establish a causal relationship of events. When presenting history, he used a pragmatic approach, relying on sources, primarily chronicles. Tatishchev was not only the founder of historical science in Russia, but laid the foundations for source studies, historical geography, Russian metrology and other disciplines.

In /725, the Academy of Sciences founded by Peter I was opened. Initially, invited German scientists worked in it. A special contribution to the development of historical science in Russia was made by G.Z. Bayer (1694 - 1738), G.F. Miller (1705 - 1783) and A.L. Schlozer (1735 -1809). They became the creators of the "Norman theory" of the emergence of statehood in Russia.

This theory was sharply criticized by Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711-1765), the first Russian academician, one of the founders of Moscow University, and a scientist-encyclopedist.

M.V. Lomonosov believed that engaging in history is a patriotic affair, and the history of the people closely merges with the history of rulers, the reason for the power of peoples is the merits of enlightened monarchs.

In 1749, Lomonosov made comments on Miller's dissertation "The Origin of the Russian Name and People." The main historical work of Lomonosov is "Ancient Russian history from the beginning of the Russian people to the death of Grand Duke Yaroslav the First or until 1054", on which the scientist worked from 1751 to 1758.

The scientist believed that the world-historical process testifies to the progressive movement of mankind. He assessed historical events from the standpoint of enlightened absolutism, widely drew on sources, and was the first to raise the question of the level of development of the Eastern Slavs before the formation of the state.

In the second half of the XVIII century. the largest representatives of noble historiography were M.M. Shcherbatov and I.N. Boltin.

A major event in the development of historical science in / quarter XIX century. was the publication of the "History of the Russian State" N.M. Karamzin.

II.M. Karamzin (1766 - 1826) belonged to the provincial Simbirsk nobility, was educated at home, served in the guards, but retired early and devoted himself to literary creativity. In 1803, Alexander I appointed Karamzin a historiographer, instructing him to write a history of Russia for the general reader. Creating the "History of the Russian State", N.M. Karamzin was guided by the desire for the artistic embodiment of history, he was guided by love for the fatherland, the desire to objectively reflect the events that took place. For Karamzin, the driving force behind the historical process was power, the state. Autocracy, according to the historian, is the core on which the entire social life of Russia is strung. Destruction of autocracy leads to death, revival - to the salvation of the state. The monarch must be humane and enlightened. Karamzin objectively revealed the insidiousness of Yu. Dolgorukov, the cruelty of Ivan III and Ivan IV, the villainy of Godunov and Shuisky, he assessed the activities of Peter I inconsistently. people in respect for her. The first eight volumes of "History .." were published in 1818 and became compulsory reading in gymnasiums and universities. By 1916 The book went through 41 editions. In Soviet times, his works were practically not published as conservative-monarchist ones. At the end of the XX century. "History ..." Karamzin was returned to readers.

An outstanding historian // pol. XIX century was Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820 -1879), creator of the 29-volume "History of Russia from ancient times", professor, rector of Moscow University. Beginning in 1851, he published a volume every year until his death. His work covers Russian history from antiquity to the end of the 18th century. Solovyov set and solved the problem of creating a generalizing scientific work on Russian history, taking into account the current state of historical science. The dialectical approach allowed the scientist to raise the study to a new level. For the first time, Solovyov comprehensively considered the role of natural-geographical, demographic-ethnic and foreign policy factors in the historical development of Russia, which is his undoubted merit. CM. Solovyov gave a clear periodization of history, highlighting four main periods:

1. From Rurik to A. Bogolyubsky - the period of domination of tribal relations in political life;

2. From Andrei Bogolyubsky to the beginning of the 17th century. - a period of struggle between tribal and state principles, culminating in the victory of the latter;

3. From the beginning of the XVII century. until the middle of the 18th century. - the period of Russia's entry into the system of European states;

4. From the middle of the XVIII century. before the reforms of the 60s. 19th century - a new period of Russian history.

Trud S.M. Solovyov has not lost its significance to this day.

A student of S.M. Solovyov was Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841 - 1911). The future historian was born into the family of a hereditary priest in Penza and was preparing to continue the family tradition, but his interest in history forced him to leave the seminary without completing the course and enter Moscow University (1861-1865). In 1871, he brilliantly defended his master's thesis "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a historical source." The doctoral dissertation was devoted to the Boyar Duma. He combined scientific work with teaching. His lectures on the history of Russia formed the basis of the "Course of Russian History" in 5 parts.

V. O. Klyuchevsky was a prominent representative of the national psycho-economic school that was formed in Russia in the last quarter of the 19th century. He considered history as a progressive process, and associated development with the accumulation of experience, knowledge, and everyday comforts. Klyuchevsky saw the task of the historian in the knowledge of the causal relationships of phenomena.

The historian paid close attention to the peculiarities of Russian history, the formation of serfdom and classes. He assigned the role of the main force in the history of the formation and development of the state to the people as an ethnic and ethical concept.

He saw the scientific task of the historian in understanding the origin and development of human societies, in studying the genesis and mechanism of human society.

Klyuchevsky developed the idea of ​​S.M. Solovyov about colonization as an important factor in historical development, highlighting its economic, ethnological and psychological aspects. He approached the study of history from the standpoint of the relationship and mutual influence of the three main factors - personality, nature and society.

Klyuchevsky combined historical and sociological approaches, specific analysis with the study of the phenomenon as a phenomenon of world history.

IN. Klyuchevsky left a deep mark on the history of Russian science and culture. His students were P.N. Milyukov, M.N. Pokrovsky, M.K. Lyubavsky and others. He had a profound influence on his contemporaries and descendants.

In October 1917, the Bolsheviks came to power. The conditions for the development of historical science in the country have changed dramatically. Marxism became the unified methodological basis of the humanities, the topics of research were determined by the state ideology, the history of the class struggle, the history of the working class, the peasantry, the communist party, etc. became priority areas.

Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky (1868 - 1932) is considered the first Marxist historian. He received his education at Moscow University. Since the mid-1890s, he has evolved towards economic materialism. Under economic materialism, he understood the explanation of all historical changes by the influence of material conditions, the material needs of man. The class struggle was perceived by him as the driving beginning of history. On the question of the role of the individual in history, Pokrovsky proceeded from the fact that the individual characteristics of historical figures were dictated by the economy of their time.

The central work of the historian "Russian history from ancient times" in 4 volumes (1909) and "History of Russia in the XIX century" (1907 - 1911). He saw his task in considering the primitive communal and feudal system, as well as capitalism, from the point of view of economic materialism. Already in these works, the theory of "commercial capital" emerged, more clearly formed in Russian History in the Most Concise Essay (1920) and other works of the Soviet period. Pokrovsky called the autocracy "commercial capital in Monomakh's cap." Under the influence of his views, a scientific school was formed, which was defeated in the 30s. 20th century

Despite the repressions and harsh ideological dictates, Soviet historical science continued to develop. Among Soviet historians, Academician B.A. Rybakov, Academician L.V. Cherepnin, Academician M.V. Nechkin, Academician B.D. Grekov, who made a significant contribution to the development of national historical science.

After the collapse of the USSR (1991), a new stage in the development of historical science began: access to archives expanded, censorship and ideological dictate disappeared, but state funding for scientific research significantly decreased. Domestic historical science has become part of world science, and relations with scientists from all over the world have expanded. But it is too early to talk about the results of these positive changes.