THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

170
THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND
the past as well. If a leader claimed that an event happened a specific
way, that determined its interpretation. If a leader concluded that two
plus two equaled five, it was the historian’s work to make it so. 301
These facts reveal that historians were not permitted objectivity
during the scientific research process. Historians analyze the events
from the documents, but when it comes to evaluation of the analysis,
they extend to the boundaries that the ideology set for them. 302
Naturally, there were some valuable written pieces even under
these circumstances. The research methodologies that authors used
meant abandoning topics about the recent past, or getting away from
the center, and working on narrow subjects. 303
Finally, a Soviet historian had to document in the references that
he/she used some sources directly about the ideology.
6. The language of the historian
Another aspect that historian should be careful about was the
literary language of the work. The literary language was crucial to
show the scientific level of the piece, the understandability of the
piece for the reader and the historian. And, it was crucial that during
all three phases of the research: the literature review, the literature
used, and the writing period. The language of the historian meant the
alphabet that he used during the writing of the work and the language
historian used in the writing: the terminology.
Since the 1940s, after the alphabet confusion that occurred in the
first years of the Soviet Union, the Russian language and the Cyrillic
alphabet moved to the forefront in the work of Soviet historians. It
is possible to speak of history writing and education in a national
language in the newly formed Republics of the Union, notably evident
that in the infusion of the Russian language at all levels as an effective
state language. It was not possible to expand languages beyond
35 minutes. I fnished my speech 45 second early. Stalin looked at his watch and
said “well done”. See: Polyakov, p. 155.
301 Хорхординa, Т. И., “Архивы и тотaлитaризм (Опыт срaвнительно-исторического
aнaлизa)”, Отечественнaя история, Moscow 1994. No: 6, p. 148.
302 This situation was confessed by Polyakov after the Soviet period. “I would really like that,
the people who grow up in a different period could understand the past 50 years. Everybody
in the institute knew that we had to follow the party’s directives. Historians were working
really objectively, science was improving. But when it comes to politics, everybody
had to support the soviet ideology and must work in the boundries that the party had set
for us…” See:“ Институт истории полстолетия нaзaд, p. 130.
303 Ağayev, ibid, p. 154.