Радянська історіографія про початковий період німецько-радянської війни на території України: сучасний аналіз та інтерпретації

Abstract

У статті розглядається комплекс питань, пов’язаних з інтерпретаціями подій початкового періоду німецько-радянської війни в історіографії 1940-х – 1980-х років. Аналізується значний масив літератури, створеної не тільки професійними істориками, а й воєначальниками, публіцистами, письменниками, пересічними свідками війни, в якому зафіксовано воєнні дії на теренах України, різноманітні факти, теоретичні узагальнення тощо. Наголошується, що український аспект у цій проблематиці майже не виділявся і відповідно не вивчався істориками радянського періоду. Праці українських вчених ґрунтуються на досить обмеженому джерельному матеріалі й мають переважно оглядовий характер. До початку 1990-х років через радянський міфологізований підхід до світової війни цілий ряд її важливих аспектів перебував поза увагою дослідницького пошуку. В статье рассматривается комплекс вопросов, связанных с интерпретациями событий начального периода немецко-советской войны в историографии 1940-х – 1980-х годов. Анализируется значительный массив литературы, созданной не только профессиональными историками, но и военачальниками, публицистами, писателями, рядовыми свидетелями войны, в котором зафиксированы военные действия на территории Украины, разнообразные факты, теоретические обобщения и тому подобное. Отмечается, что украинский аспект в этой проблематике почти не выделялся и соответственно не изучался историками советского периода. Работы украинских ученых основываются на достаточно ограниченном исходном материале и имеют преимущественно обзорный характер. К началу 1990-х годов советский мифологизированный подход к изучению мировой войны привел к тому, что целый ряд ее важных аспектов оказался вне поля зрения исследовательского поиска. The study of history of Ukraine in the period of the German and Soviet War 1941 – 1945 plays one of the leading parts in the historiography of our country. The beginning of the war is considered to be the least studied and the most disputable period in the very history of the war. The process of demythologization of the war in Ukraine began long before the first Maidan and still goes on inconsistently with different success. The Russian policy of expansion, direct military aggression against our country have become the powerful catalyst of sharp denial and rejection of any colonial and post colonial vestiges in the social and political life. The mood of protest against Russian aggressive actions involves the memory field as well. When analyzing the process of study of the history of Ukraine of 1941–1945 in the Soviet period (40–80s of the 20 th century) and appropriate works, it is worth saying that, creating the historiographical image of the war, Ukrainian historians paid attention primarily to the showing the leading role of All-USSR Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine in the organizing of emeny’s rebuff, Soviet Resistance Movement on the occupied territories and winning in the war. As a result, there is a description of the most vivid events, say, ―advantageous‖ and convenient for creating the positive image of the winners of the state and the people; there was a special attention to the glorification of the struggle against the enemy, to the exclusive showing of the united and resolute political and ideological unity of the party and the people, the Soviet state and the whole society, signification of the party leaders’ role and the state, etc. Dominating approaches to the scientific subject area and the interpretation of the war history at those times led to the omitting of so called inconvenient and negative items. Thus, ―blank spots‖ appeared between the historiographical image of the war, created in the 1940– 1980s, and the real and impartial presentation. They became the specific attribute of the Soviet time war chronicle. Soviet historiography was created in accordance with the current state of affairs; it is overfilled with ideological clichés, which restrained the search of historical truth. Most of them failed to be time tested. It was impossible to have an honest and exhaustive answer to a lot of questions, particularly, such as the reasons for tragic events at the beginning of the war, the misjudgments and errors of the strategic leadership in combats in 1941–1942, destruction of armies and fronts, the causes and circumstances of mass captivity of the Red Army military personnel and their fate, social and political base of collaborationism, which was widely spread at the time, the actions of local anti-Soviet units that had turned traitors. The data about people’s losses of the Red Army, the items of moral and psychological state of the people of Ukraine in the occupation period, etc. were in the focus of the Soviet censorship. Points about the high level of patriotism and heroism of ―all Soviet people‖, about ―unprecedented readiness level to self-sacrifice‖, about ―unity and solidarity of Soviet people‖ became prevailing theme of nearly all historical studies of the Soviet period. Filling historiography with cut-down truth and undisguised misinformation was carried out deliberately and systematic. Unreasonable glorification of the importance of some leaders led to the understatement and sometimes to the humiliation of a plain man’s role in the war. As a result, the description of events was not often personalized. The history of fighting on the war fronts was divided into public and confidential. Public history included those combats which were successful. Confidential history was about unsuccessful and unfinished battles, which were not mentioned or described shortly and in a perfunctory manner, as disasters of 1941 in Ukraine. Poor use of archives, dogmatism, and sketchiness were typical for war and historical science during a long period of time. Soviet mythological version of World War II that is based on the ideological thesis of ―great patriotic‖ has served the preservation of a number of Soviet stereotypes, which have to keep Soviet heritage in the minds of present time Ukrainians and as a result ―to bleach‖ communist regime at the expense of Soviet patriotism and transferring to the camp of ―fascists‖ and ―collaborators‖ all those who did not share communist ideology and Soviet game directive. Nowadays world and Ukrainian historiography have collected great evidence that denies Soviet version of ―great patriotic war‖, which was not ―patriotic‖ for many nations, including a number of Ukrainians, who interpreted ―patriotic‖ notion differently. It is essential to draw attention to one more problem, which is considered to be a challenge to the Ukrainian nation as a unity. The past of nearly eighty years old vanishes against the background of the ―fresh' armed conflict, started by Russia against Ukraine, terrorist attracts, etc. Therefore, the initial stage of the Soviet and German War still remains the most interesting, disputable, full of internal dynamics periods of our history, the study of which requires joint efforts of archivists, museum workers, academic and higher institution science representatives, explores.