THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY 179
I had one-sided point of view on the event. Now when we can look
at events more broadly, I realize that Denikin’s movements are part
of our history and it isn’t the way we explained before.” 328
“I do not reject my works that I wrote in the 50s, 60s or 70s. But
this should not mean that I am satisfied with every aspect of my
works, because I would write differently in these days. The reason
for this is not just that I obtained new knowledge or broadened my
horizon, but perhaps that I know events more deeply.” 329
The historian of the Soviet period, Jemil Guliev, in the introduction
of the book that collects old articles of the post-Soviet period,
focuses on the evaluation according to the historians of particular
period, and emphasizes that in new published work there is no need
for quotations, therefore, they should be replaced by expressions. 330
In fact, the Soviet historian did not write his works for Lenin,
Stalin or Marx. They wrote based on their, and at the same time, on
party’s documents, but not for them. They wrote in order to get to
know, research, and strengthen the country. Conditions of each era
are different, so the Soviet historians of a particular era should be
evaluated according to their period.
Conclusion
The Soviet system, as well as any political system, bred a generation
of historians to legitimize it, to believe and trust in it, and to
educate the masses in order to ensure its continuity. It continued to
move along with the Tsarist era historians at the beginning of the
journey, as there were not enough historians loyal to its ideology.
However, as the system gained strength, it refused the structure of
historians that belonged to an older generation, and continued to
lead the way with newly educated Soviet historians. Moreover, as
the system gained strength, Soviet historians began to adhere to
the system more closely. They had already become the part of that
system. Therefore, they were in the founding team and became the
ones who ensured its continuity. In doing so, at the same time, they
were the system’s servants.
The new scholarly cadre was “armed” with the methodology of
Marxism-Leninism. History was seen and used as an important weapon
in the struggle of the Soviet regime against other political systems.
328 Поляков, Ю. А. “Путпознaния истории”, Отечественнaя история, Moscow,
1996, No. 6, pp. 148.
329 Gurevich, p. 16.
330 Guliyev, Cemil, Tarih, Düşünceler, Müyahizeler, Geydler (1953-2003), Bakü 2004, p. 6.