You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Review: Recent Writings about Soviet Historiography
Reviewed Works: Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography, 1956-1974 by Roger D. Markwick; Istoriki Rossii: Kto est' kto v izuchenii otechestvennoi istorii: Bibliograficheskii slovar' by A. A. Chernobaev; Apparat TsK RKP(b)-VKP(b): Tsenzura i istoricheskaia nauka v 1920-e gody by M. V. Zelenov
Review by: George M. Enteen
Vol. 61, No. 2 (Summer, 2002), pp. 357-363
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2697122
Page Count: 7
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
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.
Slavic Review © 2002 Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies