THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

160
THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND
ended. The concept of Soviet historian used in broad terms is now a
history; it has to be analyzed and is still being analyzed.
It is beneficial to look at the developments of the Soviet historian
concept in its ideological dimension after specifying its meaning within
its time and place. In other words, the question of how the type of
Soviet historian has completed its development should be answered.
Before answering this question, another important topic should be
emphasized: Soviet historian is a part of the Soviet ideological system.
He is the one who is among the creators of this system and who provides
its sustainability. While doing this, at the same time, he served
the system. He is “armed” with the methodology of Marxism-Leninism.
Here the term “arm” is used on purpose because of its struggle
with the other systems; the Soviet system regarded history to be an
important tool and used it. The real duty of the Soviet historian is
to study about the important problems of the society, the working
class, and the peasantry. To examine class struggle, revolution and
national independence struggles and to study the historical development
process of economic structure, which is seen as background
by Marxist ideology, are important tasks of the Soviet historian. 273
The Soviet historian decides the “us” and “other” of the system with
reference to Soviet ideology and keeps the contents of these terms
alive by writing historical studies and history textbooks.
While performing these tasks, the science of history predicated the
experience of the Soviet Union Communist Party (CPSU), the experience
of Soviet Union, and the foundation of socialism and communism in
Soviet Union. While accomplishing these tasks, it did not limit itself
with the issues within the country; it also helped the development of
perceptions about socialist patriotism and proletarian internationalism.
This ideological background of the Soviet historian, which was determined
in broad terms, did not form in a short time. As the Soviet
system rooted and strengthened, the Soviet historian created, developed,
and enlarged his structure in parallel with this process. In the
1960s, a typical Soviet historian image appeared. When the process of
its development is examined, it is possible to see five important stages
together with some breaking points: 1. 1930s, 2. The period of Second
World War, 3. The Change after the Death of Stalin, 4. 1960s and 1980s.
These important stages are the results of the perspective at the macro
level. Although it is possible for studies made at the micro level to put
forth some determinations apart from macro thesis, the system has
always prevented, removed, assimilated, and destroyed the tendencies
273 “Нaукa”, Больwaя Советскaя Энсиклопедия, Том 29, второйвыпуск, Moscow 1954,
p. 253.