tsm2018.indd Torun Interna onal Studies No. 1 (7) 2014 Nadia Kindrachuk*1 DENYING THE EXISTENSE OF THE UKRAINIAN NATIONAL STATE IN THE HISTORICAL RESEARCH OF THE UKRAINE SSR: END OF THE 60’S 70’S OF THE XXTH CENTURY ABSTRACT This article examines the end of the 60’s – 70’s of the XX century, the time characterized by intensification of repressive management of historical science in the USSR, the establishment of censorship and harassment, forcing the Ukrainian historians to serve the needs of the Sovi- et totalitarian state. Rejection of historical science from ideological foundations of the Com- munist Party was impossible. Ideological supervision of the intelligentsia in Ukraine and total control of historical research institutions started. Ruling Communist Party fought against dissidents, media and folowers of «Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism ideology», shaped prej- udice to all national. The least manifestation of patriotism of Ukrainians was regarded as anti-Soviet activity. Ukrainians were reluctantly forced to feel inferior nation without its own long history. Keywords: Ukrainians, national identity, national state, historical science, censorship, ideological control, totalitarian state, discrimination, denationalization * Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, Ivano-Frankovsk, Ukraine, e-mail: nadia_ kindrachuk@ukr.net 2018, No. 1 (11), pp. 47–53 Published online November, 2018 DOI: h p://dx.doi.org/10.12775/TIS.2018.004 N K48 1. FORMULATION OF SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE The question of the Ukrainian national idea and processes of the Ukrainian state-building in the historical science of the Ukrainian SSR in the late 60’s – during the 70’s of the twentieth century was distorted by the Soviet ideological system. For the communist rule, Ukrainian nationalism was the subject of active speculation and correction of its content in the right direction for the ruling elite. The Communist Party of Ukraine recognized only one type of nationalism – the patriotism of all nations in favor of Russian, and the other manifestations of nationalism were interpreted as hostile and anti-state, and their adherents were branded as dissent and “enemies of the people.” The historians, whose works put forward the idea of the separation of the Ukrainian state and the oppositional mood of the existing authorities, were exposed to brutal persecution and harassment. Historical science has fully felt the complex socio-political vicissitudes of the period of the Soviet totalitarian state. After gaining Ukraine’s independence, the democratization of the socio-political life of the society and the opening of access to many archival sources, favorable conditions were cre- ated for a free, unbiased, methodologically weighed study of the Soviet past of the Ukrainian people and the expansion of the field of national memory and historical consciousness of citizens at the expense of previously neglected information about the past. The phenomena and events that have dramatically affected the historical progress and regeneration of the Ukrainian nation are the subject for reconsideration. The problems of revaluation of a num- ber of issues of national history, connected with the national liberation struggle, aspirations of the Ukrainian people to state independence were intensified. Therefore, a comprehensive study of the struggle of the Communist Party of Ukraine – the CPU with the ideology of “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism” in the history of science of the Ukrainian SSR during the 70’s of the twentieth century constantly keeps its relevance and interest from the side of scientists, ordinary citizens and requires a special approach to studying. 2. RESEARCH ANALYSIS The question of the position of the history of Ukrainian nation in the Ukrainian SSR during the second half of the twentieth century is partially covered in the writings of such authors as T. Goryaeva (2002), P. Kononenko (2005), A. Kotsur and M. Mandryk (2002), I. Maly- shevsky (2002), I. Senchenko (2004), V. Tkachenko (2011), V. Yaremchuk (2008) etc. The above mentioned scientists, covered only some aspects of the topic, in particular the study of the national idea in the intellectual heritage of the Ukrainian and Russian elites, the study of the Ukrainian national history from the viewpoint of diaspora historiography, coverage of political censorship and ideological control in the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR in particular. However, in the scientific literature, the subject under study remains insufficiently studied. This gives us the opportunity to continue working in this promising direction. 3. THE AIM OF THE ARTICLE Consequently, given the lack of knowledge on this problem, the author of this article aims at reproducing an exact picture of the Soviet power’s struggle with the ideology of “Ukrainian DENYING THE EXISTENSE OF THE UKRAINIAN NATIONAL STATE... 49 bourgeois nationalism” in the historical science of the USSR at the end of the 60’s – during the 1970’s of the XXth century, as well as correction of the historical memory of the Ukrainian people in favour of the formation of a new political community – the “Soviet people”, the establishment and support by administrative means of rigid ideological demands of the con- ceptual vision, division into periods and the interpretation of the Ukrainian past. 4. THE MAIN MATERIAL AND JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY RESULTS During the determined period, Ukrainian historians were deprived of the opportunity to freely study the authentic historical processes of Ukrainian national statehood’s origins, their research was forcibly directed to the study, first of all, of the experience of socialist and com- munist construction (Kilimnik, 1961, p. 588). The boundaries of free-thinking scholars were sanctioned by party congresses and ideological decisions. Any aspiration for independent scientific research and discussions from the political party order were harrassed. Particularly tough ideological pressure on Ukrainian historical science intensified after the removal of P. Shelest, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1972, and the coming to power of a supporter of the Kremlin’s political course, V. Shcherbytsky, and the election of the prominent ideologist of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine and a fierce fighter of “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism “V. Malanchuk. Already at the Republican Meeting of Historians held on November, 27–28, 1974 in the Central Committee of the CPU, the importance of criticizing M. Hrushevsky’s historical concep- tion and deepening the struggle against “bourgeois-nationalist falsification of the history of Ukraine” was emphasized (The materials of the Republic meeting, 1975, p. 57). Historical heritage of V. Antonovich was declared harmful (Baranovskaya, et al.,1986, p. 64), and the historian himself was called the author of the “antihistorical concept” about the eternity of the Ukrainian nation (Kovalenko, 1983, p. 71). In the Ukrainian historical science of the late 60’s – the 70’s of the twentieth century the policy of eliminating everything that in the highest party bureaucracy’ s opinion pre- vented the denationalization, Russification of Ukrainians, was actively pursued. The task of the Ukrainian historians was to neutralize national differences and to intensify the offen- sive against the “Ukrainian bourgeois ideology” (Kalakura, 2004, p. 381). For example, in 1976 – the first half of 1978, on issues of exposing “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism”, 10 monographs, 2 brochures, 10 scientific articles were issued (Yaremchuk, 2008, p. 44). The Soviet state promoted the exclusive role of the Russian people and its comprehensive dom- inance in the historical existence of Ukraine. The hierarchical, peculiar pyramid of nations headed by Russians was asserted, the leadership of the “great Russian people” was magnified (Bordyugov, et al.,1999, p. 29). This idea, conceived by the Communist Party, was forcibly embedded in the consciousness of Ukrainians and artificially fitted into the history of the Ukrainian SSR. The statement about the “commonality of the historical roots of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples” particularly crowded the scientific world and propaganda literature at the time of the celebration of the 325th anniversary of the “reunification of Ukraine with Russia” in the USSR in 1979 (Forever together, 1979). Ukrainian historians worked in the state-regulated information space, were limited in access to literature and the necessary sources,as well as limited in their full disclosure. Only members of the party or candidates to the party members were permitted to work with N K50 archival documents, and only if the permissions of the party committees were available. Doc- uments that were secret, in particular unpublished works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. Lenin, protocols of meetings of the Politburo, the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Central Committee of the Communist Party were not allowed to the reading rooms . Records that the archive did not consider possible to issue were removed from the notebooks of researchers (Instructive and methodological letters, 1970, ss. 8–50; Instructive and meth- odological letters, 1971, ss. 21–28). Also, a scientific dialogue with foreign scholars and the Ukrainian diaspora was not possible. Access to world historiography, archives and the press closed. The interest of foreign scholars and the public to the outstanding figures of Ukrainian history of the twentieth century such as M. Mikhnovsky, S. Bandera, Y. Stetsko, and such issues as: OUN – UPA, the Holodomor of 1932–1933 (for which there was a taboo), the Ukrainian national idea was equated with anti-Soviet propaganda (Yaremchuk, 2008, p. 46). In particular, it should be noted that in 1968 the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR established a department of foreign historiography, which was tasked with the scientific debunking of the ideology of anti-communism, the systematic study of the political and ideological activities of foreign “Ukrainian bourgeois-nationalist organizations” and their links with the ruling circles of the host countries, the study of foreign literature on Ukraine, directions and methods of hostile propaganda against the Ukrainian SSR (Rublyov, 2007 p. 266–267). Ukrainian historians, whose work did not meet the Kremlin’s requirements, was classified as a “risk group”, and this threatened public accusations of nationalism and anti-Soviet rule, and the labelings, removal from professional activity, dismissal from work, and even arrest for “counter-revolutionary views” or “unhealthy anti-Soviet sentiments” (Certificates of the administrative department, 1957 s. 14, 26). Thus, in particular, in 1972, such scholars as O. Kompan, O. Apanovich, Y. Dzira, V. Cook (formerly Y. Dzhira, V. Cook) were dismissed for the promotion of “bourgeois-nationalist ideas” and friendly relations with repressed dis- sidents from the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. UPA Chief Commander) (Vedeneev, 2012). In the early 1970’s, the party organs actively harassed the historian of Ukrainian economic thought S. Zlupka for “idealization” in his writings of in- dividual representatives of economic and socio-political thought in Ukrainian-Western lands and ignoring the “bourgeois-nationalistic” nature of their worldview, conscious propaganda of “bourgeois nationalism”. It came to the exclusion of S. Zlupka in January, 1972 from the CPSU membership (Rublyov, 2007, p. 44–47). On the list of “undesirable” persons of the 1970s, a Ukrainian historian, archaeologist Ya. Dashkevich was constantly present, in particular, a prohibition on citing and publishing his works (Khmara, 1993, p. 89). For lack of conscientiousness in the struggle with “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism” in March 1973 R. Symonenko was eliminated from the leadership of the department of foreign historiog- raphy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Kasyanov, 1995, p. 139). The well-known Ukrainian archaeologist I. Shovkoplyas was mercilessly criticized for having included the “undesirable” names of V. Antonovich, the bibliographical index “Development of Soviet Archeology in Ukraine (1917 – 1967)” (Kiev, 1969) F. Vovk, M. Hrushevsky, N. Polon- skaya-Vasilenko, P. Kurin, V. Kozlovskaya, V. Shcherbakovskii, V. Dubrovskyi. In 1972, the scientist was dismissed from the Institute of Archeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Orach, 1994, p. 29). DENYING THE EXISTENSE OF THE UKRAINIAN NATIONAL STATE... 51 In the late 60’s – during the 70’s of the twentieth century the thorough “cleansing” of Ukrainian Soviet historiography from dissenters was started, from the researches of those scholars whose works propagated the identity of the Ukrainian nation. From the publish- ing plans, a number of pre-approved historical works were removed, and the largest array among them was the so-called “politically harmful” texts. They were withdrawn from the public access and were deposited in special funds of libraries, which in Ukraine in the early 1970’s there were 26 (Plans for holding cluster meetings, 1970, ss. 51, 54). Among the most important works whose publication was stopped, one should mention the monograph by I. Krypiakevich “Galician-Volyn principality”, which was being prepared for publication at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR (Isaevych, 2001, p. 666–667). In 1972, the work on the multi-volume corpus editions of the Kosh Ar- chipelago of Zaporizhzhya Sich stopped, and in 1977 – over the collection “Cyril-Methodius Society” (Abrosimov, et al., 2002, p. 503). In the defined period, for “serious methodological mistakes” and “theoretical errors”, the taboo of Glavlit (General Directorate for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press) was superimposed on virtually all Ukrainian studies (Bilokin, 1990, p. 76), including the “bourgeois-nationalist historiography” of Ukrainian history. One of the orders of the head of Ukrlit M. Pozdnyakov in 1973 was directed to all the works of such authors as I. Bagry- any, A. Lyubchenko, I. Ogienko, N. Polonska-Vasilenko, R. Smal-Stotsky, D. Nightingale, P. Fedenko, V. Chaplenko, K. Shteppa (Rublyov, 2007, p. 323–324). The editorial policy of the Ukrainian Historical Journal and the Archives of Ukraine were adapted to a new course, concerning the national past of the Ukrainian people. Ukrainian poet, human rights activist V. Stus stated the consequences of the rule of the Soviet government in Ukraine, which, in his opinion, “pushed” the Ukrainian nation: “Everything that has been created in Ukraine over the past 60 years has been flooded with bacilli disease. How can a national tree develop when it is cut into half-wings? What is the history of Ukraine – without historians, when there are no Cossack chronicles, neither the history of ancient Rus, nor Kostomarov, Markevich, Bantysh-Kamensky, Antonovich, Hrushevsky...” (Stus, 2008, p. 386). 5. CONCLUSIONS Thus, on the basis of the foregoing, the following conclusions can be made: the historical science in the Ukrainian SSR in the late 60’s – during the 70’s of the twentieth century was completely subordinated to the policy of the Soviet state, which accredited the “only true”. Marxist-Leninist ideology. Of particular relevance at that time were those scientific works, the pages of which highlighted the socialist and communist construction of the country, a re- assessment of those facts and revisions of those concepts that showed the benefit of Ukrainian historical identity. Given this, the struggle against “bourgeois nationalists” was actively car- ried out, “bourgeois-nationalist falsifications” of Soviet reality were criticized etc. In addition, the Russification of the Ukrainian past has considerably intensified. Historical science was filled with endless “new evidence” of close historical ties with the “fraternal Russian people”, the propaganda of the idea of Russia’s historical superiority in the lives of Ukrainians. His- torians were forced to legitimize the final solution of the national question in the Ukrainian SSR in favor of a “new historical community” – the “Soviet people.” Certain historical events and figures of Ukrainian national history were artificially forgotten. In these conditions, the N K52 conceptual connection of Ukrainian historians with the achievements of previous genera- tions, scientific traditions and whole schools broke up. The political situation and ideological pressure of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine severely affected the objectivity of the coverage of the historical past of Ukraine. Historical science of the Ukrain- ian SSR in the late 60’s – during the 70’s of the twentieth century was put at the service of falsification. REFERENCES Abrosimov, V., & Bezdrabko, V. (2002). Boldyrev Scetches of the history of the archives in Ukraine. Kyiv: Publishing House “KM Academy”. Baranovskaya, N., Berezanskaya, S., & Varvartsev, N. (1986). Historiography of the history of the Ukrainian SSR. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Bilokin, S. I. (1990). On shelves of special funds in different years. Word and time, 1, 69–76. Bordyugov, G., & Bukharaev, V. (1999). National historical thought in the conditions of the Soviet time. National histories in the Soviet and post-Soviet states. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 21–73. Certificates of the administrative department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, letters, information about the regional committees of the Communist Party of Ukraine, ministries and other organizations about anti-Soviet manifestations and the fight against them (beginning January 21, 1957 – about December 16, 1957). (1957). Foundation 1. Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. Descrip- tion 24. Case 4537. Central State Archive of the public unions of Ukraine. Forever together: materials and documents on the celebration of the 325th anniversary of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. (1979). Kiev: Politizdat of Ukraine. Goryaeva, T. M. (2002). Political censorship in the USSR 1917–1991. Moscow: ROSSPEN. Instructive and methodological letters of the CPA IML under the Central Committee of the CPSU on summarizing the work of the country’s party archives for 1966–1970 and drawing up future plans for 1971–1975. The basic rules for the work of party archives of regional committees, regional party committees and branches of the IML under the CPSU Central Committee. (1975). Fond 39. Institute for Political Studies of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. Description 3. Case 1438. Central State Archive of the public unions of Ukraine. Instructional and methodological letters of the CPA IML under the Central Committee of the CPSU on the preparation of reports for 1971 and work plans for 1972, and the prepa- ration of documents for the Archives of the CPSU by the party archives. IML decision on streamlining storage and use of restricted-use documents. The list of documents of party publishing houses, party and Komsomol periodicals to be stored in party archives (1972). Fund 39. Institute for Political Studies of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. Description 3. Case 1520. Central State Archive of the public unions of Ukraine. Isaevych, Ya. (2001). From the memories of Ivan Krypiakevich and his sons, Peter Bog- dan and Roman. Ukraine: cultural legacy, national consciousness, power. Lviv. 8: Ivan Krip’yakevich from native traditions, sciences, suspensions. 654–669. Kalakura, Y. (2004). Ukrainian Historiography. Kiev: Genesis. DENYING THE EXISTENSE OF THE UKRAINIAN NATIONAL STATE... 53 Kasyanov, G. (1995). Dissenters: Ukrainian Intelligencia in the oppression movement of 1960– 80’s. Kyiv: Lybid. Khmara, S. (1993). Today about the past. Lviv: B. v. Kilimnik, O. V. (1961). Culture construction in the Ukrainian RRS. The most essential solutions of the Communist party and the USSR: Compilation of documents in 2 toms. Kiev: Derzh- politvidav URSR. Kononenko, P. P. (2005). National Idea, Nation, National Socialism. Kiev: Millenium. Kotsur, A. P., & Mandrik, M.V. (2002). National idea in intelectual legacy of the Ukrainian and national elit in the end of XVIII–XX century. Chernivtsi: Zoloty Litavry. Kovalenko, L. (1983). Historiography of the history of the Ukrainian SSR from ancient times to the Great October Socialist Revolution: the textbook for students of the history faculties of pedagogical institutes. Kiev: Vishcha school. Malishevsky, I. (2002). Monologue over the grave of Glavlit. Vitchysna, 9/10, 114–122. Orach, N. (1994). Chief Scientist. Library Bulletin, 2, 27–31. Plans for holding cluster meetings of workers of the flips in 1971 and a report on the results of the work of the censorship organs of the Ukrainian SSR in 1970. (1970). Foundation 4605. Glavlit USSR. Description 1. Case 138. Central State Archives of the top authori- ties and administration of Ukraine. Rublyov, O. S. (2007). Institute of Ukrainian History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Second decade (1957–1977): documents and materials. Kiev: Institute of the Ukrainian History NASU. Senchenko, M. I. (2004). Book Chamber of Ukraine: history and successive year. Kiev: Book Chamber of Ukraine. Stus, V. (2008). Notebook from the concentration camp: Selected Works. Kiev: Fact. The materials of the Republic meeting of historians at the Central Committee of the Com- munist Party of Ukraine. (1975). Ukrainian Historical Journal, 2, 7–58. Tkachenko, V. M. (2011). About the “historical truth” in time and space. Ukraine - Europe - Svit: International compilation of scientific theses. Series: history, international relationship, 8, 232–240. Vedeneev, D. (2012). Political Repressions of 1920–1980s and the Problems of Forming a National Memory. Ukrainian Truth. Historical truth. December, 26. Retrieved from: http://www.istpravda.com.ua/research/2012/12/26/105584/ Yaremchuk, V. P. (2008). On the fight against the “nationalist” trends in the historical science of Ukraine in 1970 and the Edges. Grani, 3, 42–47.