[2] This crystallised the piatichlenka or five official periods of history in terms of vulgar dialectical materialism: primitive-communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and socialism.
[3]284 Following publication of the "Short course", on 14 November 1938 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union issued a special statement that the course and its chapter "About dialectic and historical materialism" were declared as "encyclopedia of philosophical knowledge in a field of Marxism-Leninism", in which were given "official and verified by the Central Committee interpretation of basic issues of history of the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and Marxism-Leninism and without allowing any other arbitrary interpretations".
[6] Robert Conquest concluded that "All in all, unprecedented terror must seem necessary to ideologically motivated attempts to transform society massively and speedily, against its natural possibilities.
Historians were required to pepper their works with references—appropriate or not—to Stalin and other "Marxist–Leninist classics", and to pass judgment—as prescribed by the Party—on pre-revolution historic Russian figures.
"[11] The state-approved history was openly subjected to politics and propaganda, similar to philosophy, art, and many fields of scientific research.
[14] In another example, the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 as well as the Polish-Soviet War of 1919–1920 were censored out or minimized in most publications, and research was suppressed, in order to enforce the policy of 'Polish-Soviet friendship'.
[11] Similarly, the enforced collectivisation, the wholesale deportations or massacres of small nationalities in the Caucasus or the disappearance of the Crimean Tatars were not recognized as facts worthy of mention.
The sociocultural evolution of societies was considered to progress inevitably from slavery, through feudalism and capitalism to socialism and finally communism.
In addition, Leninism argued that a vanguard party was required to lead the working class in the revolution that would overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism.
Furthermore, the Communist Party—considered to be the vanguard of the working class – was given the role of permanent leading force in society, rather than a temporary revolutionary organization.
[8] Soviet and earlier Slavophile historians emphasized the Slavic roots in the foundation of the Russian state in contrast to the Normanist theory of the Vikings conquering the Slavs and founding the Kievan Rus'.
In regions like Novgorod, the boyar aristocracy was able to limit the prince's power by making the office and the head of church elective.
It is also argued that by bearing the full weight of the Mongolian invasions, Russia helped to save Western Europe from outside domination.
Soviet historians have an upbeat assessment of Alexander Nevsky, characterized as one of the greatest military leaders of his time for defeating the German knights' invasions of Russia in the 13th century.
Dmitry Donskoi, for his leadership in the struggle against the Mongols, is credited for being an outstanding military commander and contributing significantly to the unity of the Russian lands.
This is the translation of a widely cited article ("Lukavaia Tsifra") by journalist Vasilii Seliunin and economist Grigorii Khanin, in Novyi Mir, February 1987, #2: 181–202[24]Various Sovietologists have raised the issue of the quality (accuracy and reliability) of data published in the Soviet Union and used in historical research.
[25][27] Nonetheless the policy of not publishing—or simply not collecting—data that was deemed unsuitable for various reasons was much more common than simple falsification; hence the many gaps in Soviet statistical data.
[25][26][27] In his book, The Stalin School of Falsification, Leon Trotsky cited a range of historical documents such as private letters, telegrams, party speeches, meeting minutes, and suppressed texts such as Lenin's Testament,[30] to argue that the Stalinist faction routinely distorted political events, forged a theoretical basis for irreconcilable concepts such as the notion of "Socialism in One Country" and misrepresented the views of opponents.
He also argued that the Stalinist regime employed an array of professional historians as well as economists to justify policy manoeuvering and safeguarding its own set of material interests.
[32] Part of the Soviet historiography was affected by extreme ideological bias, and potentially compromised by the deliberate distortions and omissions.
[citation needed] When Eduard Burdzhalov, then the deputy editor of the foremost Soviet journal on history, in spring of 1956 published a bold article examining the role of Bolsheviks in 1917 and demonstrated that Stalin had been an ally of Kamenev—who had been executed as a traitor in 1936—and that Lenin had been a close associate of Zinoviev—who had been executed as a traitor in 1936—Burdzhalov was moved to an uninfluential post.
[citation needed] The Brezhnev Era was the time of samizdat (circulating unofficial manuscripts within the USSR) and tamizdat (illegal publication of work abroad).
Putin said that "we can't allow anyone to impose a sense of guilt on us" and that the new manual helps present a more balanced view of Russian history than that promoted by the West.
The book says that repressions, carried out by Stalin and others, were "a necessary evil in response to a cold war started by America against the Soviet Union."
It cites a recent opinion poll in Russia that gave Stalin an approval rating of 47%, and states that "The Soviet Union was not a democracy, but it was an example for millions of people around the world of the best and fairest society."
Officially, the Commission's mission is to "defend Russia against falsifiers of history and those who would deny Soviet contribution to the victory in World War II.
"[38] United Russia has proposed a draft law that would mandate jail terms of three to five years "for anyone in the former Soviet Union convicted of rehabilitating Nazism.