REMEMBRANCE IN TIME - Index of

294
Remembrance in Time
asked for measures to attract in the history sector, the professional staff, claiming
“how to form a Moldavian historical-philological community if the history sector not
only failed to attract young professionals, but rejected them” xxiii , whereat N.V.
Berezneacov claimed that “he attempted to attract as non-titular collaborators,
comrade Grosu, Lojeckin, Şlain, Popovici and Roitman from the Pedagogic Institute;
however they were more preoccupied with teaching the students’ themes” xxiv . Despite
the small number of staff within the history sector V.M. Senchevici declared
“considering we have most units in the staff charts we are entitled to ask from the
history sector more scientific results than from the other sectors” xxv . This statement
suggests that the history sector had most units in the staff charts.
As regards the teaching staff, the situation was no better; however during postwar
period it was solved on two paths: through the help of the Soviet of USSR’s People
Commissars, which set to work in the Institute, graduates and doctoral students of the
universities from Moscow and Leningrad and through the experts in history,
economics, language and literature of Moldavia ’s ICŞ, which acted as Institute
collaborators xxvi . The list of the teaching staff had the following aspect: N.V.
Berezneakov – candidate in historical sciences, head of the Chair of History, graduate
of the University from Leningrad, head of the history section of Moldavia ’s ICŞ,
taught the history and historiography of USSR; Z.V. UdalŃova – superior lector,
graduate and doctoral student at US from Moscow, taught ancient and middle history;
N.O. PavliŃkaia – candidate in sciences, docent, taught the history of USSR and the
modern one, graduate of US from Leningrad; V. Senchevici – lector, taught the
history of Moldavia, graduate of the Pedagogic Institute from Tiraspol, head of
Moldavia ’s ICŞ; I. S. Grosul – dean of the Faculty of History, candidate in historical
sciences, lector, defended his candidate thesis in historical sciences on the theme
Peasant Reform from 1868 in Moldavia (in fact, in Bessarabia – nn). This way, we
can say that great part of those activating in the history sector of IMCŞ also deployed
didactic activity.
In the first postwar decade, the interaction between historians and power was
determined by the contradictory nature of the functions performed by historical science in
the Soviet State. On one hand, the historians were permanently verified and watched. For
instance, during the meeting of the Scientific Council of the Moldavian Institute for
Scientific Researches from November 10, 1946, the president of the Commission CC of
PC (b) of Moldavia noticed that “part of the workers are not sufficiently trained for the
scientific-research activity...”, “... the commission also settled that some workers of the
institute do not have adequate interpretations on the Marxist-Leninist teaching...”, besides
“... the commission believes that one of the causes for the unsatisfactory activity of the
institute consists in the lack of constructive criticism xxvii .
In MSSR, it was very important for the specialist, when employed, not to have been
before the war on the “occupied” territory and not to have had contacts with the
“Romanian and German fascists” xxviii . Therefore, as regards some scientific collaborators
from the Institute of History who, during interwar period, had studied in Romania, even if
not on the spot, however they were reminded this.