{"title":"Six by five: Soviet and emigrant historians at the 7th International congress of historical sciences","authors":"Valentina Yurievna Voloshina, Valentina Pavlovna Korzun","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2023.111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The focus of the authors’ attention is the dialogue between emigrant historians and their Soviet colleagues during the International historical congress that was held in Warsaw in August 1933. It was the first congress that took place in a Slavic country. The main sources of research are the reports and accounts of the participants of the congress, presented in the form of publications in Soviet scientific magazines («Historian Marxist», «Class Struggle»), in emigrant periodicals («Russia and Svadom») and in European reviews («Revue historigue de droit francais et etranger»). The authors also use paperwork documents from the Foundation of the Institute of History of the Comacademy. The Soviet delegation consisted of six members, while there were five emigrant scientists, who were at the same time members of national delegations of other countries where they were living. The common interest of both sides, which appeared behind the congress venues, was recorded, the features of self-descriptions and presentations and self-presentation to the world scientific community were revealed. The constructed corporate portraits of each other were demonstrated. The conclusion was made that there was not a constructive dialogue between different sides. At the same time it was noted that there was not a provocative dialogue either, like one that occurred during the congress at Oslo. The reasons for this stagnation were identified. The authors of this article characterize prevailing atmosphere at the congress (let’s not quarrel) as «communicative plateau», that was connected with the increasingly complicated international situation of the early thirties.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2023.111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The focus of the authors’ attention is the dialogue between emigrant historians and their Soviet colleagues during the International historical congress that was held in Warsaw in August 1933. It was the first congress that took place in a Slavic country. The main sources of research are the reports and accounts of the participants of the congress, presented in the form of publications in Soviet scientific magazines («Historian Marxist», «Class Struggle»), in emigrant periodicals («Russia and Svadom») and in European reviews («Revue historigue de droit francais et etranger»). The authors also use paperwork documents from the Foundation of the Institute of History of the Comacademy. The Soviet delegation consisted of six members, while there were five emigrant scientists, who were at the same time members of national delegations of other countries where they were living. The common interest of both sides, which appeared behind the congress venues, was recorded, the features of self-descriptions and presentations and self-presentation to the world scientific community were revealed. The constructed corporate portraits of each other were demonstrated. The conclusion was made that there was not a constructive dialogue between different sides. At the same time it was noted that there was not a provocative dialogue either, like one that occurred during the congress at Oslo. The reasons for this stagnation were identified. The authors of this article characterize prevailing atmosphere at the congress (let’s not quarrel) as «communicative plateau», that was connected with the increasingly complicated international situation of the early thirties.
作者关注的焦点是1933年8月在华沙举行的国际历史大会上移民历史学家与苏联同事之间的对话。这是第一次在斯拉夫国家举行的代表大会。研究的主要来源是代表大会参与者的报告和叙述,这些报告和叙述以出版物的形式发表在苏联科学杂志(“历史马克思主义”,“阶级斗争”),移民期刊(“俄罗斯和斯瓦多姆”)和欧洲评论(“Revue historigue de droit francais et aliens”)。作者还使用了来自共产主义学院历史研究所基金会的书面文件。苏联代表团由六名成员组成,而有五名移居国外的科学家,他们同时也是他们所居住的其他国家国家代表团的成员。记录了会议会场背后出现的双方共同的兴趣,揭示了自我介绍和向世界科学界自我介绍的特点。演示了相互构建的企业肖像。得出的结论是,各方之间没有进行建设性的对话。与此同时,有人指出,也没有象奥斯陆大会期间那样的挑衅性对话。查明了这种停滞的原因。这篇文章的作者将大会上盛行的气氛(让我们不要争吵)描述为“交流高原”,这与三十年代初日益复杂的国际形势有关。