자료/현대사2017. 11. 8. 11:50

러스킨 워크숍: "역사와 정책: 러시아의 사례를 가지고" (Luskin Workshop: "History and Policy: The Russian Case" featuring Arch Getty and Tom Lifka)

Date: 11 Oct 2017

Place: 6275 Bunche Hall


게티 (A. Getty)

러시아의 역사 - 끊임없이 침략을 받은 역사

정책: 역사 - 무엇이 미국의 이해에 가장 잘 부합하는가?

강한 러시아는 쉽사리 사라지지 않을 것이다//제제는 작동하지 않을 것이고, 오히려 러시아 경제의 다양성만 증진시키는 결과를 가져온다.

협상이 필요하다.

악마화(demonize)가 어느 수준에서 도움이 되는가? 이는 정책이라고 할 수 없다. 협상 외에 다른 방안은 [미국이 원하는] 반대 방향의 결과만을 초래할 것

협력이 필요하다.

테러리즘, 국제적 안보불안(insecurity), 핵확산 등 여러 사안에 걸쳐.

역사에서의 생략은 우리에게 도움이 되지 않고, 알려주는 것도 없음.

역사지리학적 측면. 평원은 침략을 부른다. 러시아의 광활한 동부 평원. 러시아는 이러한 조건에서 도무지 벗어날 수가 없다. 그러한 조건은 무엇이며, 그들은 그러한 조건에 어떻게 대응하는가?

리프카 (T. Lifka)

역사적 유추; 특히 미국 정책에서는 나치와의 경험이 정책 형성에 언제나 영향을 끼쳤다. 

뮌헨 ... 한국전쟁 ... 베트남전쟁 ... 그리고?

트루먼은 고립주의적 공화당 의원들을 설득하기 위해 나치와의 (실패) 경험을 초들기도 했다. 당대 지성들 또한 이러한 역사적 비유를 옹호했다.


사회적으로 만연한 인상 또는 분위기 [=러시아 악마화 등]를 바꾸려면 무엇을 해야 하는가?

- 언론의 어마어마한 힘.

- 러시아 악마화는 아무 도움 안 됨. 그들은 미국을 좋아함. 그리고 러시아는 일괴암적(monolithic)이지 않음, 여러 이해 집단이 푸틴을 둘러싸고 있음.

소련은 실제로 영토를 획득하려고 했다? 공격성?

- 1979년 아프간 이전에 그러한 경우는 없었음.

정책이란 무엇이며 누가 그것을 만드는가?

- 엘리트들, 정부.

인문학, 사회과학에 다시 투자해야 한다고? 이미 그렇게 해오지 않았는가?

- 그나마라도 투자를 했기에 다행이지, 안 했더라면 상황은 더욱 나빠졌을 것. 투자가 많아야 영향력도 따라서 증대됨.

Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

독서/USSR2017. 9. 25. 01:43

Introduction: the Great Purges as history

Each says something about the nature of the world, and, though individually he adds little or nothing to our understanding of it, still from the combination of all something considerable is accomplished. - Aristotle

There are a number of speculations as to why Stalin carried out this bloody operation. Fainsod; Isaac Deutscher; Brzezinski etc. ... Both versions assume that the party (and police) bureaucracies were efficient and obedient ... In its investigation of the structure of the Bolshevik Party in the thirties, this study questions the applicability of the totalitarian model (2-3)

Rethinking Stalinism: A weak tradition of source criticism and a developing historiography on related problems both suggest the need to reevaluate the thirties. ... Personal accounts are valuable sources and provide vivid descriptions of the experiences and psychological impact of events of the persons who wrote them ... Yet historians have been justifiably skeptical of memoirs and autobiographies. ... The inaccessibility of archival sources on the Great Purges has led to a willing suspension of disbelief and to something less than rigorous methodology. (4-5)

This study examines the structure, organization, composition, and evolution of the Soviet Communist Party from 1933 to 1939. ... [T]he focus is the relationship between central and peripheral party organizations. ... The findings suggest that the party in the 1930s was inefficient, fragmented, and split several ways by internal factional conflict. ... Indeed, all the political events of the thirties were not parts of the same phenomenon, and it is a basic assumption of the study that an analysis of the party's structure can help avoid such reductionist fallacies. ... Although he was certainly the most authoritative political actor of the period, speculations on his mental state, private attitudes, and prejudices are baseless, given the lack of primary evidence on these matters. ... Accordingly, the work is not an exhaustive history of the Great Purges, for only access to Soviet political archives will allow historians to write definitive works on the event. (6-7)

Primary sources: 1) archival material from the Smolensk Archive, a collection of Communist Party records from the Western Region (oblast') from before the 1917 Revolution to about 1939. ... 2) printed documents, published speeches, decisions, resolutions, and so forth. ... A careful reading of party decisions alone has shown interesting conflicts and even divergent points of view within the Stalinist leadership at the time of the Great Purges. ... [A]lthough Soviet documents are often devilishly selective and full of omissions, they are important indicators of what the leaders believed to be problems and of what they wanted done - considerations of no little importance in such a mystery story. (7-8)

Nothing in the following pages is meant to minimize, justify, or excuse the terror, notwithstanding the terminology and rhetoric that close reliance on contemporaneous texts forces one to use. Certainly, any attempt to excuse such violence would be pointless and morally bizarre. ... Although the moral questions seem clear, the historical ones do not. If it were enough to fix guilt or blame, there would be no reason for any historical research. To ever understand why something happened, it is first of all necessary to know what happened. (8-9)

Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요