소련 역사 속의 스탈린 시대

Historiography on the Stalin era in Soviet/Russian History

This paper deals with the Historiography on the Stalin era in Soviet/Russian History. It attempts to introduce the trend of research about the Stalin era as a way to overview the academic achievement of the past decades and stimulate further study. Scholars use the Stalin era in Soviet/Russian History as Stalinism or the Stalinist system etc. in different terms. There are not united technical terms. Still, we don t have any united technical terms about the Stalin era. Nevertheless within the field of Soviet studies, Stalinism has been the central problem and mystery that has preoccupied generations of scholars. It was in the Stalin period, conventionally dated from 1929 to Stalin s death in 1953, that the shape of the new order, product of the Bolshevik revolution 1917, was established. This was the era in which the Soviet Union was at its most dynamic, engaging in social and economic experiments that some hailed as the future become manifest and others saw as a threat to civilization. The Soviet (Stalinist) system is a complex of political and economic institutions, values, and cultural practices. Similarities between the two great antagonists of the democracies, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, generalized in the so-called totalitarian model, made a great impact on Western scholarship and public opinion in the decades following the Second World War. The totalitarian school dominate US Sovietology, and not surprisingly sought the key to Stalinism in its political system, characterized totalitarian. The totalitarian regimes aim to break down class loyalties and civil society in order to create lonely, atomised individuals with no private space of their own, who can thus be easily used to serve the state s interests. From the late 1950s onwards, many scholars reacted against the totalitarian school. Some claimed that it was a politicised term that had been designed to highlight differences between the Soviet Union and the West. Especially in the 1970 s, this was challenged by a new generation consisting mainly of social historians who wanted to bring society back in and write history from below as well from above. Thus much scholarship of the Stalin era has been labelled revisionist. Yet revisionist historians often differ widely amongst themselves. To distinguish them, it has been helpfully suggested that there have been two generations of revisionists. First generation revisionists, like S. Cohen, M. Lewin and R. Tucker declared that the totalitarian model did not apply to the pre-Stalin regime. A second generation, often with a particular interest in social history, argued against totalitarian perspectives in general. In the 1970s and 1980s, the totalitarian-versus-revisionist debate preoccupied Soviet studies. One was the political: revisionists thought the old-timers were full og Cold War prejudice, while traditional Sovietologists thought the revisionists were whitewashers of the Soviet Union. Another was disciplinary : old-time Sovietology was dominated by model-oriented political scientists, revisionism by empirically-oriented social historians. By disposing of the Soviet Union, 1991 made the question of being for or against it irrelevant. As for the disciplines, social historians flourished and multiplied in the 1980s. The main thrust of 1970s revisionism was to show that Soviet society was something more than just a passive object of the regime s manipulation and mobilization, as totalitarian theorists suggested. Revisionists also pointed to upward mobility from the working class as a means of elite formation and source of legitimacy for the regime, and argued that the Soviet Communist Party of the 1930s was incapable of exerting the pervasive totalitarian control attributed to it. In 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new scholarship on Stalinism emerges. They moves towards cultural approaches, and are thus the third big shift in Soviet studies. Th