{"title":"实用史学:e.v.塔尔与苏联外交部关于“法国问题”的讨论(1943-1944)","authors":"I. Magadeev","doi":"10.21638/spbu24.2023.207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article aims to define the content and the peculiarities of the position held by E. V. Tarle during the active discussions on the “French question” in the so-called ‘Litvinov commission’ of the Soviet Foreign Office. On the basis of the new evidence from the Archives of the Foreign policy of the Russian Federation, the author compares two Tarle’s roles: the one of the historian interested in the French studies for a long period and that of the foreign policy advisor whom he became exactly during the Great Patriotic war. The author concludes that the notions made by Tarle as a historian and as a foreign policy advisor were often not similar. Being a proponent of the affinity between the Russian and French interests on the pages of his historical studies, in 1943–1944, under the influence of critical stance of the Soviet leadership and diplomacy on the “French question” Tarle adopted a tougher position. He was skeptical about the revival of France as a Great Power and prioritized the relations with Washington and London over those with Paris. Being a part of the academic elite of the Stalin’s USSR and having the experience of the exile, he was ready to fit into the dominant consensus defined from above and acknowledged the limitation for his freedom of maneuver as an expert and adviser. At the same time, Tarle continued pursuing high academic standards, carefully hinted on the volatility of the international situation, and was respected by his French colleagues.","PeriodicalId":53957,"journal":{"name":"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practical Historiography: E. V. Tarle and Discussions on the “French Question” in the Soviet Foreign Office (1943–1944)\",\"authors\":\"I. Magadeev\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/spbu24.2023.207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article aims to define the content and the peculiarities of the position held by E. V. Tarle during the active discussions on the “French question” in the so-called ‘Litvinov commission’ of the Soviet Foreign Office. On the basis of the new evidence from the Archives of the Foreign policy of the Russian Federation, the author compares two Tarle’s roles: the one of the historian interested in the French studies for a long period and that of the foreign policy advisor whom he became exactly during the Great Patriotic war. The author concludes that the notions made by Tarle as a historian and as a foreign policy advisor were often not similar. Being a proponent of the affinity between the Russian and French interests on the pages of his historical studies, in 1943–1944, under the influence of critical stance of the Soviet leadership and diplomacy on the “French question” Tarle adopted a tougher position. He was skeptical about the revival of France as a Great Power and prioritized the relations with Washington and London over those with Paris. Being a part of the academic elite of the Stalin’s USSR and having the experience of the exile, he was ready to fit into the dominant consensus defined from above and acknowledged the limitation for his freedom of maneuver as an expert and adviser. At the same time, Tarle continued pursuing high academic standards, carefully hinted on the volatility of the international situation, and was respected by his French colleagues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu24.2023.207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu24.2023.207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Practical Historiography: E. V. Tarle and Discussions on the “French Question” in the Soviet Foreign Office (1943–1944)
The article aims to define the content and the peculiarities of the position held by E. V. Tarle during the active discussions on the “French question” in the so-called ‘Litvinov commission’ of the Soviet Foreign Office. On the basis of the new evidence from the Archives of the Foreign policy of the Russian Federation, the author compares two Tarle’s roles: the one of the historian interested in the French studies for a long period and that of the foreign policy advisor whom he became exactly during the Great Patriotic war. The author concludes that the notions made by Tarle as a historian and as a foreign policy advisor were often not similar. Being a proponent of the affinity between the Russian and French interests on the pages of his historical studies, in 1943–1944, under the influence of critical stance of the Soviet leadership and diplomacy on the “French question” Tarle adopted a tougher position. He was skeptical about the revival of France as a Great Power and prioritized the relations with Washington and London over those with Paris. Being a part of the academic elite of the Stalin’s USSR and having the experience of the exile, he was ready to fit into the dominant consensus defined from above and acknowledged the limitation for his freedom of maneuver as an expert and adviser. At the same time, Tarle continued pursuing high academic standards, carefully hinted on the volatility of the international situation, and was respected by his French colleagues.