THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

40
THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND
during this period. At the height of the repressions in 1937-1938,
the pressed busied itself with publishing party resolutions, but the
importance of the press strengthened in the 1940s and 1950s. The
pages of the newspapers and journals were filled with scientific,
critical reviews, including some works of formerly purged colleagues.
Prominent newspaper reporters often cautioned party leaders in the
pages of the media. And, the role judges played was reduced only to
writing judgments and applying the punishment.
One of the most controversial cases in the post-war era was the
prosecution of the historian E. Bekmakhanov. He was labeled with
“nationalism” due to his close relations with many former Alash leaders,
many of whom shared a similar fate. The initial discussions of
Bekmakhanov’s work appeared in the Moscow Academy of Sciences
on 28 February 1948. 47 Later, in June of that year and again between
14-19 July, the subject was debated in the Kazakh SSR Academy of
Sciences, Institute of History, Ethnography and Archeology. It can be
said that the first meeting resulted in success. The meeting attendees
generally decided to blame the scientist for his deviations, later echoed
at the Kazakh SSR Academy of Sciences. Despite the accusations,
his treatment was relatively soft compared to the old system of punishment
in the USSR. Since it was a discussion, there were people
present who opposed and defended Bekmakhanov. If T. Shoiynbaev, S.
Tolybekov, V. Zhiznevski, K. Aidarova, A. Nurkanov, and B. Suleimenov
openly criticized him, others such as I. Budovnis, E. Dilmuhamedov, A.
Nusipbekov, A. Tursynbayev, T. Elevov, H. Adilgereyev, B. Asfendiyarov,
S. Medvedev, and T. Kulteleyev spoke in his defense.
At first glance, it is necessary to ask about the correctness of
those who accused him. His accusers tried to prove that Bekmakhanov’s
ideas were somehow in opposition to Marxism-Leninism, while
simultaneously trying to demonstrate their own loyalty to the Party.
Some speakers rejected his work, even if they had no proof. In fact, K.
Aidarova, who spoke in the meeting held in Moscow and who failed
to see what she expected among the historians of the country, did
not go to meet with her Kazakhstani colleagues. In her article called,
“Against Violating the Historical Truth”, Aidarova pointed out the political
campaigns being carried out countrywide. Clearly she concerned
herself with more than the merits of the case, she cared about the
political consequences as the argued her points in the journals “Zvezda”
and “Leningrad”, where she faulted the Kazakh SSR Language and
47 Bekmakhanov E., Jetitomdık şıgarmalar jinagı, 6. Tom (Stenogramma E. B. Bekmahaovtın
“XIX. g. 20-40 jj. Qazaqstan” kitabının diskussyası).- Pavlodar: “EKO” GÖF, 2005, p.
360.