著者

立石 洋子

出版者

東北大学東北アジア研究センター

雑誌

東北アジア研究 (ISSN:13439332)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.20, pp.133-146, 2016-02-29

著者

立石 洋子

出版者

ロシア史研究会

雑誌

ロシア史研究 (ISSN:03869229)

巻号頁・発行日

no.78, pp.96-112, 2006-05-25

---

Целью данной статьи является рассмотрение дискуссии историков в 1930-50 гг. об истории Российской Империи, в особенности полемики относительно истории нерусских народов. Особое внимание будет уделено переоценке роли ведущих личностей в истории в начале 30-х гг. По мнению автора, перемены в исторической науке 30-х гг. были обусловлены переоценкой роли ведущих личностей в истории с целью представить их в качестве символа объединения Советского государства, и предметом переоценки были не только цари или офицеры Российской Империи. в 30-40 гг. было создано множество учебников и монографий, посвященных истории нерусских народов и в этих работах национальные герои также получали положительную оценку. В то же время, в ходе данной дисскусии в исторических кругах стали подниматься новые вопросы: какие личности заслуживают положительной характеристики? Иван Грозный или Идегей? Николай II или шамиль? Эти споры были связаны с оценкой политики колонизации, проводимой Российской Империей, и восстаний нерусских народов против России. Такой поворот дискуссии был неожиданным для руководства партии, которое было поставлено перед необходимостью дать инструкции по данной проблеме. Таким образом, автор показывает ход данной дискуссии как продукт взаимодействия историков и политиков.

著者

立石 洋子

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2011, no.40, pp.50-64, 2011 (Released:2013-05-31)

参考文献数

44

---

The paper discusses the controversies on the history of non-Russian peoples in the USSR among the Soviet Marxist historians in the 1920s to early 1930s. The development of early Marxist historical science in the USSR was closely related with the policies of the party. The party leaders distinguished the nationalism of the oppressing nations from that of the oppressed nations, and considered “great power chauvinism,” or Russian nationalism, the main danger. Accordingly, the study of all the peoples in the USSR and the improvement of their cultural level became an important task for scholars, including historians. At the first convention of the All-Union Society of Marxist Historians in December 1928 to January 1929, the study of the history of the peoples in the USSR was declared as the main task of Soviet historians. For the first time, the historians faced the problem of how to interpret the history of non-Russian peoples from the Marxist perspective. One main arguing theme was the evaluation of the Russian rule over the non-Russian peoples. Another main problem was the tendency of “the great power chauvinism” of the Russian Marxist historians; this issue was raised by Ukrainian Marxist historians, including M. Iavorskii. They criticized some Russian Marxist historians for underestimating the Ukrainian elements in the history of the revolutionary movement in Ukraine and for not acknowledging the independent features of the cultural, social, and economic history of Ukraine. However, M. Pokrovskii, the most authoritative Russian Marxist historian, did not accept the criticism, and thus, the historians never reached a consensus. In contrast, the problems that became serious themes in the Stalin period, such as the evaluation of the Khan who led the rebellion of non-Russian peoples against Russia, or the evaluation of the “Holy war” by the Muslim population against Russian rule, were given less attention by the historians. At the end of 1929, when “the cultural revolution” began, not only did the non-Marxist intellectuals receive criticism, but the debate among the Marxist historians became strained. In Ukraine, the criticism against Ukrainian nationalism caused mass political oppression, and the most famous non-Marxist historian, M. Khlshevskii, and Marxist historian, M. Iavorskii, were both arrested. The class factor was put forward in the historical interpretation and this change was reflected also in the study of non-Russian history. The leaders of rebellions against Russia in nineteenth-century Kazakhstan and the North Caucasus and of the rebellion against Poland in seventeenth-century Ukraine came to be evaluated as repressors of the masses, and their dissatisfaction against the ruling classes was considered to be a driving force of these rebellions. In the Stalin period, historians tried to reevaluate the tradition and the leaders of each people and again faced the problem of the harmonization of the class elements and the national character of each people. This problem remained unsolved from the 1920s. Thus, in the discussion of the early Soviet period, we can see the roots of the fierce discussion among the historians and politicians of the Stalin period.

著者

立石 洋子

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2011, no.40, pp.50-64, 2011

---

The paper discusses the controversies on the history of non-Russian peoples in the USSR among the Soviet Marxist historians in the 1920s to early 1930s.<br> The development of early Marxist historical science in the USSR was closely related with the policies of the party. The party leaders distinguished the nationalism of the oppressing nations from that of the oppressed nations, and considered &ldquo;great power chauvinism,&rdquo; or Russian nationalism, the main danger. Accordingly, the study of all the peoples in the USSR and the improvement of their cultural level became an important task for scholars, including historians.<br> At the first convention of the All-Union Society of Marxist Historians in December 1928 to January 1929, the study of the history of the peoples in the USSR was declared as the main task of Soviet historians. For the first time, the historians faced the problem of how to interpret the history of non-Russian peoples from the Marxist perspective.<br> One main arguing theme was the evaluation of the Russian rule over the non-Russian peoples. Another main problem was the tendency of &ldquo;the great power chauvinism&rdquo; of the Russian Marxist historians; this issue was raised by Ukrainian Marxist historians, including M. Iavorskii. They criticized some Russian Marxist historians for underestimating the Ukrainian elements in the history of the revolutionary movement in Ukraine and for not acknowledging the independent features of the cultural, social, and economic history of Ukraine. However, M. Pokrovskii, the most authoritative Russian Marxist historian, did not accept the criticism, and thus, the historians never reached a consensus. In contrast, the problems that became serious themes in the Stalin period, such as the evaluation of the Khan who led the rebellion of non-Russian peoples against Russia, or the evaluation of the &ldquo;Holy war&rdquo; by the Muslim population against Russian rule, were given less attention by the historians.<br> At the end of 1929, when &ldquo;the cultural revolution&rdquo; began, not only did the non-Marxist intellectuals receive criticism, but the debate among the Marxist historians became strained. In Ukraine, the criticism against Ukrainian nationalism caused mass political oppression, and the most famous non-Marxist historian, M. Khlshevskii, and Marxist historian, M. Iavorskii, were both arrested. The class factor was put forward in the historical interpretation and this change was reflected also in the study of non-Russian history. The leaders of rebellions against Russia in nineteenth-century Kazakhstan and the North Caucasus and of the rebellion against Poland in seventeenth-century Ukraine came to be evaluated as repressors of the masses, and their dissatisfaction against the ruling classes was considered to be a driving force of these rebellions.<br> In the Stalin period, historians tried to reevaluate the tradition and the leaders of each people and again faced the problem of the harmonization of the class elements and the national character of each people. This problem remained unsolved from the 1920s. Thus, in the discussion of the early Soviet period, we can see the roots of the fierce discussion among the historians and politicians of the Stalin period.<br>

著者

立石 洋子

出版者

東北大学東北アジア研究センター

雑誌

東北アジア研究 (ISSN:13439332)

巻号頁・発行日

no.20, pp.133-145, 2016

著者

立石 洋子

出版者

北海道大学スラブ・ユーラシア研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 = Slavic studies (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

no.62, pp.29-57, 2015

著者

立石 洋子

出版者

北海道大学

雑誌

研究活動スタート支援

巻号頁・発行日

2012-08-31

---

フルシチョフ期のソ連における自国史像の変遷を分析課題とした。なかでも歴史家の関心を集めた1)北カフカース史の描写をめぐる議論と、2)歴史家の論争の中心となった学術誌『歴史の諸問題』誌の活動を中心に検討を進めた。1)に関する研究成果まず、同時期の政治改革の過程では共産党史だけでなく自国史の解釈も大きな論争点となったこと、特に北カフカースを中心とする非ロシア人地域の歴史とロシア史との関係が歴史家の議論を集めたことを明らかにした。そのうえで、19世紀の北カフカースで起こった対ロシア蜂起であるシャミーリの反乱について、1953年のアゼルバイジャン共産党第一書記バギーロフの逮捕が歴史家の論争の始まりの契機となったこと、また1957年のチェチェン・イングーシ自治共和国の再建が、この史実に対する公式見解の方向性を決定づける重要な要因となったことを明らかにした。2)に関する研究成果『歴史の諸問題』誌の活動を、1953年に編集長となった歴史家パンクラ―トヴァの活動を中心に分析した。まず、1953年の編集部の改組が科学アカデミーの決定に基づくものであったことを指摘し、そのうえで同誌編集部が、読者会議の開催や討論用論文の掲載を通じて歴史家と社会の論争を促していった過程を分析した。これに加えて、共産党中央委員であり、最高会議代議員でもあったパンクラートヴァのもとには、スターリン時代に政治的抑圧を受けた多数の知識人の名誉回復と釈放を求める市民からの訴えが多数寄せられていたことを明らかにした。さらに、社会に対して公的歴史像の変遷を説明する役割を担った彼女が、スターリン期の歴史学の役割に対する社会からの批判と、政治指導部に対する市民の批判の高まりを警戒した党指導部による統制の狭間で苦悩するさまを跡付け、従来の研究が着目してこなかったソヴィエト体制下の知識人の一側面を指摘した。