SUMMARY: Georgii Kas'ianov of Ukraine approaches Russia's initiative in the field of politics of history as part of the larger European trend of promulgating national and European Union laws regulating historical judgments. He stresses specific features of this politics of history in the post-Soviet states – new members of the European Union. In their attempts to forge new societies and loyal subjects they often make history an integral part of politics. In Kas'ianov's estimate, Russia joined this trend after 2000, and Ukraine, in this respect, was following suit. What makes the new Russian Commission special is its pretentions toward regulating the policies of history and historical memory beyond Russian borders. In such an unusual form, Russia has institutionalized its – in many respects – scandalous international politics toward its immediate neighbors. Kas'ianov is mostly concerned with the fate of a newly reestablished (after the break in the early 1990s) professional cooperation between Ukrainian and Russian historians, and with the temptation that the Commission presents for Ukraine, which is institutionally as well as psychologically ready to follow Russia's example.
SUMMARY: Georgii Kasianov explores the emergence of a new, integrative historical narrative aimed at creating loyal citizens of the new state in Ukraine in the past two decades. In the center of his discussion is the debates surrounding the man-maid famine of 1932–1933 in the context of Ukrainian historical memory. Kasianov notes that memory of the Soviet period in Ukraine is shaped first by the fact that most people experienced the Soviet regime first hand, and, second, due to the presence of virtually unreformed state institutions and elites. Correspondingly, the new elite attempts to build positive memories of the Soviet past in the new narrative of the national past, whereas negative memory of the Soviet period serves to legitimize the post-Communist regime. Memory is effectively turned by the elite into a "buffer zone" that protects the regime from attacks by those who demand a post-Communist "Nurnberg". The emerging consensus between former Communists and current nationalist democrats with respect to Ukrainian statehood allowed for the creation of a standardized narrative of the national past, into which memory of the famine of 1932–1933 is written. Unlike famines of 1921–1923 and 1947, which were reported by Soviet historians, the famine of 1932–1933 were covered up by the Soviets. Due to the attention paid in recent years to the famine of 1932–1933 (called Holodomor after the émigré Ukrainian tradition), it became the major symbol of national past with multiple roles in the public discourse and politics. Kasianov surveys attempts by émigré Ukrainians to bring forward a discussion of the famine during the Soviet period as well as discusses the process of gathering momentum in revealing information about it in the late 1980s. As the society learned more about the horrors of the famine, the return of the memory occurred in the context of the emerging Ukrainian national narrative of the past and the famine became one of the central pillars of the national traumatic past. It also served to prove that the Bolshevik regime was a force external to Ukraine. Despite official participation in events commemorating the famine, the post-Communist regime was also careful to brake before demands for a trial of those responsible could gain ground. The famine became the instrument of different fractions of the political elite in their struggles for the appropriation of the national narrative of the past.
Kasianov explores various interpretations of the famine by historians, discussing the range of terms used to describe the hunger ("famine", "famine-genocide", "ethnocide", "Holodomor", "Ukrainian Holocaust", etc). Despite the ambivalence of the term, Kasianov argues in favor of describing the famine of 1932-1933 as genocide on the basis of the UNO Convention of 1948. Kasianov also discusses the numbers of victims and notes that for the most part public discourse on that aspect of the tragedy is mired in politics.
Overall, Kasianov concludes, the discovery of the genocidal famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine became a founding element of the national narrative of the past and debates about it helped distance Ukraine from the Soviet past and forge and strengthen a sense of belonging to the Ukrainian national community. At the same time, memory of the famine was always present, especially among the rural population, which facilitated the topic becoming a central element of the public discourse. As the situation changed and the by the beginning of the 2000s the issue of the genocidal famine acquired the status of a national tragedy and part of the national mythology, the discourses on the famine by historians and by the public increasingly parted, as the first became more rational and the second remained trapped in the mythological stage. The famine remains an instrument of political struggles, while at the same time there is more discussion of non-Ukrainians as victims of the genocide. Nevertheless, there is little discussion of the local executioners of the Moscow-directed policy. Finally, Kasianov believes that there is no single structure in the debates on the famine and that Ukraine did not acquire "a Holocaust industry" of its own.
SUMMARY: In his article Georgii Kas'ianov focuses on dilemmas of writing of history in post soviet Ukraine. The author depart from a paradox of the contemporary Ukrainian political and intellectual elite's reverting to the language of nation building of the 19 th century. He analyzes the canons of Ukrainian writing on national identity and later layers of Marxist historiography and relates them to the political and intellectual conjuncture of the post soviet period to understand the growing domination of ethnocentric and nation-legitimizing approaches to the past. Working toward an explanatory model for understanding historiographic development and prevailing modes of construction of the past, Kas'ianov proposes to view those intellectual processes as the intersection of essentially incomplete modern agenda of nationbuilding and the post-modernist realities of the world, gravitating toward integration and globalization. Concluding his survey of innovative works on Ukrainian history and conceptual-institutional context of development of historical scholarship the author observes promising signs of renewal and diversification of contemporary Ukrainian historiography, especially under the impact of more sustained and systematic discussions of methodological aspects of historical scholarship.
