DOI: 10.25136/2409-8744.2021.3.35816

Abstract: The object of research, the results of which are presented in this article, is the Soviet historical paradigm in its development. The subject, in turn, is defined as the achievements of Soviet historians in the study of post-war collectivization in Right-Bank Moldova. The author dwells in detail on how objective and subjective factors influenced the development of historical science in Soviet times. The article examines in detail the evolution of topics and assessments in articles, monographs and collective generalizing works devoted to the history of the republic as a whole. When working on the article, both general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, typologization and idealization) and special historiographical methods (periodization method, historical-genetic, historical-systemic, comparative-historical) were used        The novelty of the research is determined by the fact that the author analyzes the works of Soviet historians from the standpoint of the modern historical paradigm, the foundations of which were laid by the scientific school of V. P. Danilov. Based on the results of studying the Soviet historiography of collectivization in Right-Bank Moldova, the following conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, the main problem of Soviet historians was limited access to archival documents. Secondly, the agrarian historiography of this problem is often subjective and interprets information from available archival documents and various statistical information in line with generally accepted Soviet ideological attitudes. Thirdly, as in the case of the study of collectivization in 1920-1930, topics related to violations during collectivization, "dispossession" remained under an ideological ban. Fifthly, the specifics of the historiography of collectivization in Right-Bank Moldova became a significant attention of historians to this problem in the second half of the 1960s and 1970s, which is connected, according to our assumption, with the rule of L.I. Brezhnev, who in 1951-1952 was the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CP(b) of the MSSR and led the consolidation of collective farms in the republic.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-8744.2019.6.31612

Abstract: The object of this research is the evolution of Soviet historical paradigm, while the subject is the development of the Soviet historical science in the context of studying postwar collectivization in the Baltic countries in1 970’s – 1980’s under the conditions of re-Stalinization. The author examines the political factors of the development of historiography of collectivization in the Baltic republics, a special place among which belongs to the end of “Thaw” and termination of the revision of Stalinism in 1970’s – 1980’s. Particular attention is paid to the evolution of the topic and assessments in the works of Soviet scholars. The conclusion was made that the agrarian historiography of collectivization in Baltic countries is characterized with unilateral interpretation of the official documents, subjectivism, and limited inquiry of archival data. Within the framework of Soviet paradigm has formed a circle of the forbidden topics, which studying was a threat to its destruction. The author’s special contribution consists in determination of contradiction between the similar statistical records and ideologized conclusions on the nature of collectivization and “dekulakization” in the Baltic republics. The novelty is defined by the fact that the author is first to conduct the analysis of the Soviet historical writings in terms of the modern paradigm, leaning on the experience of studying collectivization of the 1930’s by the historians of V. P. Danilov School of Science.