Carr’s death in 1982 went unnoticed in the Soviet historical journals and his work itself was not available to Russian readers until 1990, when the first of an intended four-volume set of his History of Soviet Russia was published in a large edition. His name, as a leading journal put it in 1991, had up to this point been ‘almost unknown to a broad Soviet readership’, although specialists were aware of his work and regarded it with great respect even though they could not yet say so in their publications (‘Carr,’ as one of them remarked, was a ‘whole research institute’).1 Carr had in fact become an object of study at a much earlier stage through the substantial numbers of Soviet authors whose business was the refutation of ‘bourgeois falsifiers’, and through the smaller but more interesting group of Soviet historians who were allowed to read his work in the original and who engaged seriously and in public with his philosophy of history and with his examination of ‘continuity and change’ in the Soviet historical experience.
KeywordsGlass Industry Soviet Period October Revolution Historical Thought Bolshevik Revolution
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.A.M. Nekrich et al., eds, Protiv burzhuaznoi fal’sifikatsii istorii sovetskogo obshchestva (Moscow: Izdanie VPSh i AON pri TsK KPSS, 1960), pp. 5, 121, citing the ‘two-volume [sic] work The Bolshevik Revolution 1917–1923’ at Vol. 2, pp. 37–8 (Carr, in fact, noted that the evidence was ‘fragmentary and misleading’ and relied heavily on the testimony of the first People’s Commissar of Agriculture).Google Scholar
- 3.See respectively V.E. Lyzlov in T.V. Bataeva, ed., Kritika burzhuaznoi istoriografii istorii SSSR (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo universiteta druzhby narodov, 1985), p. 13, and the review of Foundations of a Planned Economy in Istoriya SSSR, No. 5, 1974, p. 190.Google Scholar
- 5.E.J. Hobsbawm, ‘Progress in History’, Marxism Today, February 1962, p. 47.Google Scholar
- 6.N.N. Yakovlev, ‘Razdum’ya angliiskogo istorika’, Novaya i noveishaya istoriya, No. 1, 1963, pp. 173–4.Google Scholar
- 7.I.N. Olegina, ‘O trude E.Kh. Karra “Sotsializm v odnoi strane”’, Istoriya SSSR, No. 4, 1963, pp. 188–205.Google Scholar
- 13.M. Gefter, ed., Istoricheskaya nauka i nekotorye problemy sovremennosti (Moscow: Nauka, 1969), p. 5. For the conference see Istoriya i sotsiologiya (Moscow: Nauka, 1964).Google Scholar
- 15.Quoting Geoffrey Barraclough, History and the Common Man: A Presidential Address (London: Historical Association, 1967), p. 14.Google Scholar
- 23.A.M. Neiman, ‘E. Kh. Karr: ot “politicheskogo realizma” k “novomu obshchestu”’, in Istoriya i istoriki. Istoriograficheskii ezhegodnik 1978 (Moscow: Nauka, 1981), pp. 96–112.Google Scholar
- 34.V.V. Chernik, ‘Problemy razvitii sovetskoi derevni v istoricheskoi kontseptsii E. Kh. Karra’, in A.N. Sakharov, ed., Sovremennaya burzhuaznaya istoriografiya sovetskogo obshchestva. Kriticheskii analiz (Moscow: Nauka, 1988), pp. 116–42, at p. 139.Google Scholar
- 41.P.V. Volobuev et al., eds., Oktyabr’skaya revolyutsiya. Narod: ee tvorets ili zalozhnik? (Moscow: Nauka, 1992).Google Scholar
- 47.E. Kh. Karr, Istoriya Sovetskoi Rossii, Book 1 (Moscow: Progress, 1990), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
- 53.Where Carr’s writings on Soviet foreign policy was discussed it was routinely to reject his view that the early Soviet state had ‘in principle’ conducted policies that were hostile towards the capitalist powers: see for instance V.A. Ovsyankin, ed., Protiv burzhuaznoi fal’sifikatsii istorii sovetskogo obshchestva (Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1967), p. 18.Google Scholar