Soviet System and the Historian; E.V. Tarle $875-1955) as a Case Study MEL ROBERT SH1TEE WAYNE STATE UNIV. HISTORY DEPT, Copyright by SIDNEY R. SHERTER 1968 THE SOVIET SYSTEM AND THE HISTORIAN: E.V. TARLE (1875-1955) AS A CASE STUDY by Sidney Robert Sherter A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Office for Graduate Studies, Graduate Division of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1968 MAJOR: HISTORY APPROVED BY: Adviser Date O rd er No No. Of Volumes . « Color ........................ Dreciation to all my dissertation. P a rt No. Stephen Fisher and M onths 3 , and Professor Y e a r . their constructive Imprint ( ) yes ( ) no essor Richard V. Burks of Wayne State University for graciously consenting to read my dissertation and agreeing under the circumstances to serve as Chairman of the defense committee. I wish to thank Professor Goldwin Smith of Wayne State University for allowing me to undertake the initial research on E.V. Tarle in his Ph.D. seminar. I would like to praise the staff of the Wayne State University Library, especially the personnel in the inter-library loan section, for their aid in locating source materials from all over the country. My father-in-law Samuel Tattelbaum of Newton, Massachu- setts, Elizabeth Poniewerska of Chicago, Illinois, Professor Frank Gambacortta and William Kluback of Southampton College deserve mention for their assistance in translating some dif­ ficult passages in Russian, Polish, Italian, and German. I also wish to commend my typist, Miss Barbara Dubikowicz, for a superlative job. Above all, I owe a special debt of gratitude to my wife Selma. Without her patient understanding and unselfish help, this dissertation would never have been completed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It is a pleasure to express my appreciation to all who have guided and helped me in writing my dissertation. I am particularly indebted to Professor Stephen Fisher and Thomas Riha of the University of Colorado, and Professor John Weiss of Wayne State University for their constructive suggestions. I am also grateful to Professor Richard V. Burks of Wayne State University for graciously consenting to read my dissertation and agreeing under the circumstances to serve as Chairman of the defense committee. I wish to thank Professor Goldwin Smith of Wayne State University for allowing me to undertake the initial research on E.V. Tarle in his Ph.D. seminar. I would like to praise the staff of the Wayne State University Library, especially the personnel in the inter-library loan section, for their aid in locating source materials from all over the country. My father-in-law Samuel Tattelbaum of Newton, Massachu­ setts, Elizabeth Poniewerska of Chicago, Illinois, Professor Frank Gambacortta and William Kluback of Southampton College deserve mention for their assistance in translating some dif­ ficult passages in Russian, Polish, Italian, and German. I also wish to commend my typist, Miss Barbara Dubikowicz, for a superlative job. Above all, I owe a special debt of gratitude to my wife Selma. Without her patient understanding and unselfish help, this dissertation would never have been completed. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................ i Chapter I. INTRODUCTION: THE SOVIET SYSTEM AND THE HISTORIAN . .............................. 1 II. E.V. TARLE'S CAREER BEFORE THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION ....... .... 3 5 III. TARLE'S ACTIVITIES DURING THE FIRST TEN YEARS OF SOVIET RULE .............. ................ 66 IV. TARLE AND THE SUBJUGATION OF HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP TO THE PARTY LINE............. 93 V. TARLE AS HISTORICAL SPOKESMAN FOR POLICIES OF THE REGIME (1934-1945) ......................... 131 VI. COLD WAR HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE LAST TEN YEARS OF TARLE'S CAREER (1945-1955).................. 165 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... ................ 200 AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT 221 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION THE SOVIET SYSTEM AND THE HISTORIAN Ever since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Soviet leaders have viewed the field of history as the most political of the social sciences. Soviet historiography, as a result, has been conditioned by political events; and Marxist-Leninist ideology, also affected by politics, has been used as its philosophical justification. As early as 1899, Lenin recognized that Karl Marx had merely laid the foundation for scientific socialism and that socialists in the future must reinterpret this doctrine in light of changing circumstances.1 Lenin's doctrine has been one of the major characteristics of Soviet ideology. Whether in the guise of Marxism, Leninism, or Stalinism, Soviet ideology has been highly flexible and inextricably linked 1George Friedman, ’’Revolt Against Formalism in the Soviet Union.1’ Science and Society, II (Summer, 1938), p. 300; Lenin's views can be found in later editorials: Pod Znamenem Marksizma, No. 4-5 (1943), p. 13; and in Bol­ shevik, No. 1 (January, 1945), p. 2. 1 2 with changes that have occurred on the foreign and domestic 2 scene. The flexibility of Soviet ideology has created an almost insurmountable obstacle for the historian. The ra­ tionale behind historical scholarship has been and still is utility, with the historian being used as a tool in support of ideological or political platforms proposed by the Party. As an employee of the state, the historian has found it practically impossible to work independently of party policy or to circumvent it; and just precisely what party policy might be at any given moment has presented even more complex problems. Often unaware, and even when aware, the historian has been unable to comprehend the reasons for sudden tactical 2 Several articles in leading Western Journals express this point of view. The following is by no means a complete list: J-S, "Changements en U.S.S.R.," Le Monde Slave, IV (October, 1936), pp. 161-180; Hans Jonas, "Die Entwicklung der Geschichtsforschung in der Soviet-Union Seit Ausgang des Weltkrieqes," Zeitschrift fur Osteuropaische Geschichte, V (1931), pp. 66-83, 386-396; George Kagan, "La Crise de la Science Historique Russe," Revue Historique, LXV (April 1940), pp. 1-35; Anatole G. Mazour, "Party Line History," American Scholar, XXII (Summer, 1953), pp. 293-303; Anatole G. Mazour, and Herman E. Bateman, "Recent Conflicts in Soviet Historiography," Journal of Modern History, XXIV (March, 1952), pp. 56-68; Philip E. Mosely, "Freedom of Artistic Expression and Scientific Inquiry in Russia," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CC "TNovember'J 1938) , pp. 254-T74; R. Salomon, "Zur Lage der Geschichtswissenschaft in Russland," Zeitschrift fur Osteuropaische Geschiclqte, VI (1932), pp. 385-402; Gunther Stdkl, "Historiker auf Generallinie Geschichtswissenschaft und Partei in vier Jahrzehnten Sowjet- union," Wort und Wahrheit, XII (1957), pp. 511-26; Stuart R. Tompkins, "Trends in Communist Historical Thought," The Slavonic 3 shifts in domestic and foreign policy which has placed him 3 at the mercy of the Party* Consequently, the non-party and even the party historian who has been writing acceptable history may suddenly find himself accused of producing "unscientific bourgeois" history. In most instances, the offender has been given a chance to confess his errors and agree to rewrite his work in accordance with current party historical directives. Severe penalties have been imposed on the historian who has refused to admit his "shortcomings." The subsequent punishment has been exile, permanent banishment from the profession accom­ panied by severe social and economic hardships, or, in extreme 4 cases, execution, especially during the Stalinist period. and East European Review, XIII (January, 1935), pp. 294-319; Georg von Rauch, "Grundlinien der Sowjetischen Geschichts- forschung im Zeichen des Stalinismus," Europa Archiv, V (October, 1950), pp. 3383-88; Bertram D. Wolfe, "Operation Rewrite; The Agony of Soviet Historians," Foreign Affairs, XXI (October, 1952), pp. 39-57. This theme can also be inferred from editorials in Pravda, Izvestia, and Soviet historical journals. 3 Herbert E. Bowman, "Literary and Historical Scholar­ ship," The Transformation of Russian Society: Aspects of Social Change, ed. Cyril E. BlackTCambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), p. 381; Fritz Epstein, "Die Marxistische Geschichts- wissenschaft in der Sovetunion Seit 1927," Jahrbucher fur Kultur und Geschichte der Slaven, VI (1930), pp. 79-80. 4See footnote two. Also Vladimir Chernavin, "The Treat­ ment of Scholars in the Soviet Union," Slavonic and East European Review, XI (April, 1933), pp. 710-14. The most comprehensive study of this problem in English is Konstantin F. Shteppa, Russian Historians and the Soviet State (New Brunswick: Rutgers Univer- sity Press, 1962). In Russian see G. Zaidel and M. Tsvibak, Klassoviy Vrag na Istoricheskom Fronte: Tarle _i Platonov i_ ikh 4 Some historians have managed to survive the reoccurring purges by dealing with obscure historical topics of a non­ political nature, such as pre-Kievan and early Byzantine history. Probably others have made it a practice to review carefully party publications which might tend to suggest forthcoming changes in the writing of history. The historian in this case has been able to revise his work in time, avoiding the inevit- 5 able chastisement or public confession of guilt. Since 1917, four distinct periods have emerged in the development of historical writing in the Soviet Union. Each period has been marked by acute domestic and foreign problems which had a