We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
In this essay, George Enteen reviews two studies of Soviet historiography, one Russian and one western, as well as a Russian who’s who of historians. The Russian study, which examines the establishment of censorship in the 1920s, is based on archives that have usually been overlooked. The western study examines the struggle against intellectual controls in the years from 1956 to 1974 and draws on archives and extensive interviews. This latter study receives most of the attention. Enteen takes issue with the study’s author on a number of points concerning Stalinist historiography. By posing questions that arise from a comparison of the studies, Enteen seeks to make an observation about the state of Soviet studies.
1 Keep, John and Brisby, Liliana, eds., Contemporary History in the Soviet Mirror, Library of International Studies, vol. 2 (New York, 1964)Google Scholar.
2 The reference to Lenin’s cruelty appears on page 264, note 190. Lenin, Vladimir, The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archives, ed. Pipes, Richard, with the assistance of David Biandenberger (New Haven, 1996)Google Scholar.
3 As quoted in Markwick, Rewriting History in Soviet Russia, 183.
4 Stalin, Iosif, “O nekotorykh voprosakh istorii bol'shevizma,” Proktarskaia revoliutsiia, 1931, no. 6:3–12 Google Scholar.
