Russia’s War on Ukraine and the Legacy of the ‘Archival Revolution’

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been devastating; the huge loss of life, destruction of homes, and material hardships faced by so many are impossible to quantify. Against this background, discussing the impact of the war on research into the region’s history, particularly bemoaning new restrictions and challenges, seems superfluous and even insensitive. Nevertheless, history is playing a role in this conflict. Putin’s frequent manipulation of Russia’s historical relationship with Ukraine forms an important part of his justification for the invasion, while Ukraine’s promotion of its own national history serves to mobilize patriotic feeling and its own rights as an independent state.¹ It is, then, never more important that serious and systematic historical research informs a public discourse that is increasingly polarized and lays the foundation to challenge Putin’s distortion of history.

Yet, inevitably, the war has had a huge impact on the ability to conduct historical research. Physical access to Russia (and its archives and libraries) is difficult, if not impossible, and much the same is true of Belarus. Access to Ukrainian archives and libraries remains shaped by the war, with some suffering damage or destruction, while others are open but difficult to access in person. The conferences and collaborations across the region that have characterized the post-Soviet period have, when involving Russian institutions and scholars, largely ground to a halt or are at least severely restricted, while historians in Russia and Belarus face increasingly restrictive conditions. Morally, divisions have emerged between those seeking to conduct ‘business as usual’, as far as is possible, and those reluctant to retain any links with Russia under the current circumstances.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that some historians have talked about the end of the post-1991 ‘archival revolution’ and a return to the conditions that shaped historical research through the Soviet period. Indeed, it could be said that the absence of the state-sponsored routes that provided restricted access to archives and libraries before 1991 make the situation worse. One historian has even argued that believing there had been an archival revolution in the first place is ‘illusory’ given restrictive visa regulations and the ongoing presence of classified collections and closed archives.² This seems to go too far – the visa regime has not been enforced in many archives until recently and many topics have not suffered from closed archives – but for those of us who trained as historians in the years after 1991, the present situation is unprecedented and deeply depressing. Archives rarely reveal ‘smoking guns’, and a lot depends on what we expect to find there: revolutions, wars, and successive regimes have destroyed materials, while contentious issues often remain contentious even after consulting numerous archives. Archival materials also take time to change our thinking and, moreover, must still be used in dialogue with other sources and our own imaginations as we interpret material and ascribe meaning.³ Yet the new archival sources have added detail and complexity, opened new avenues of research and changed perceptions, often taking existing debates in new directions. The study of the Russian Revolution, for instance, is hard to envisage without the explosion of provincial studies, the growth of more nuanced studies of various social groups and the rise of various forms of cultural studies made possible by the fairly unrestricted access to archives and libraries enjoyed since 1991.⁴

At the same time, while there may be parallels to be drawn with the Soviet period, we have hardly been transported back over thirty years as if nothing has happened in the intervening period. The wealth of subsequent research has transformed our field, and these advances can never be undone. Decades of delving into Russia’s national archives, local archives across the country, and the archives of the former Soviet republics have provided a much better sense of the material that exists and what it can reveal. The efforts of western-funded projects and various institutions in Russia have provided extensive resources in the form of huge microfilm collections, published collections of documents and, more recently, digitized materials that continue to provide huge opportunities for research. The importance placed by historians in Russia in publishing documents in various forms, moreover, has led to numerous publications, which are usually accessible outside of Russia.⁵ And, of course, archives and libraries remain open, most areas of Russian history remain relatively unproblematic politically, and research remains ongoing for those able to gain access. We have hardly, then, been transported directly back into the past. That said, it is a legitimate and pressing question to explore the implications of the changing research landscape since Russia’s invasion.

The most obvious questions, in my mind at least, now revolve around sources and their availability. All research projects involve a dialogue between potential research questions and available sources. Occasionally, one predominates over the other – projects driven by big questions or projects based on particular sources – but usually some level of compromise or balance is reached, with the questions asked shaped and influenced by the sources available. The war has clearly made such a dialogue sharper and it seems likely that compromises will become more evident. This may force many to become more creative in their research questions; it may force others to prioritize what can be done with the sources available.

It is worth re-emphasizing, however, that many sources do exist outside of Russia or online, and many – on closer examination – are surprisingly underutilized. The immediate months after the invasion in February 2022 inevitably saw lots of discussion around the holdings of archives in areas of the former Russian or Soviet empires that remain accessible: the well-known collection in Helsinki, for instance, or lesser-known archives in the Baltic States, Moldova, and Poland, or the challenges involved in obtaining archival access in various countries across the Caucasus and Central Asia. Such archives were already forming the basis of exciting new research prior to the war, fuelled by attempts to de-centre or de-colonise histories of the Russian Empire, and no doubt such studies will only proliferate in the years to come.⁶

From my perspective, though, as a historian of the Russian Revolution who has worked largely in archives in the ‘centre’ (Moscow), the possibility of travel elsewhere, while enticing and a possibility in the future, sidesteps the new challenges faced when trying to study developments from the perspective of the centre. While understandings of revolutionary developments and dynamics have been transformed by perspectives from outside of the centre, whether Russian provinces or various parts of the Russian Empire, revolutionary events still started in the centre before spreading out. And while current events mean that it is more important than ever to critique Russo-centric approaches, we will not gain much in the long term if this involves marginalizing or ignoring the view from the centre. Facing the challenges posed in studying the centre is crucial. Fortunately, as noted, actions across the last few decades have resulted in numerous relevant sources, many of which remain (also fortunately and perhaps surprisingly) relatively understudied. It may be that the relatively easy accessibility of Russian archives and libraries for the revolutionary period has led many of us to look past the resources that have been building up (and often gathering dust) in archives and libraries elsewhere in the world.

Focusing on sources relevant to studying the revolutionary period, and sticking with archives for the moment, the extensive collections in the Bakhmeteff Archive (Columbia University), the Hoover Institution (Stanford University) and the International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam) are well known, although still rich depositories of a wide range of materials. The Hoover Institution was also involved in a huge project started in the 1990s to microfilm selected archival collections from major Russian archives under the title of the ‘Archives of the Soviet Communist Party’.⁷ The collection clearly emerged with an agenda – a focus on the repressive organs and activities of the Soviet state⁸ – and it is hardly surprising that these microfilms have been mined most extensively by historians of the Gulag. Other elements, though, remain relatively underused, probably because relatively few libraries seem to have the entire collection, literally thousands of microfilm reels are involved, and it can be tricky to find specific files on individual reels. The result was clear when I conducted research on early Soviet courts; dozens of boxes of microfilms that had clearly never been opened given the pristine nature of the packaging! Yet, such records provided an unparalleled insight into the civil war period. Like most of the archival collections selected, the project had not microfilmed the entire archival fond, requiring supplementary trips to Moscow for completeness, but I could never have processed so much material so quickly on the ground in Russia. For the revolutionary period, the collection also includes numerous files from the Commissariat of Internal Affairs, many of which include materials from across the country on various aspects of life after 1917. There was a separate project, ‘The Leaders of the Russian Revolution’, which microfilmed sections of the personal collections of many important Bolsheviks (supplemented recently by the separate digitization of Stalin’s personal fond). There are also other collections on pre-1917 revolutionary literature, the Red and White armies (with materials from military archives), and on social and economic life in the 1920s, to name a few.⁹ None of these copied collections in their entirety and, of course, none are without agendas in their selection of materials, but still they remain expansive in their coverage and are undoubtedly underused with plenty of scope for further research.

Much the same is true of published collections of documents, the number of which for the revolutionary period has expanded dramatically over the last few decades. As well as some joint ventures between Western and Russian organizations, such as the Annals of Communism series,¹⁰ there are long-established Russian projects for this period, most obviously Arkhiv noveishei istorii Rossii, Politicheskie partii Rossii. Konets XIX – pervaia tret’ XX veka, and Rossiia XX vek: Dokumenty.¹¹ In addition, there have recently been numerous collections published by archives and historians from across Russia, ranging from those on particular regions and towns containing all sorts of materials, to the publication of the records of particular institutions, usually local soviets or government institutions. These often appear in relatively small print runs but are accessible in major research libraries outside of Russia and remain underutilized. In some cases, this is no doubt because they often focus on ‘high’ politics, something less fashionable in recent scholarship, and are seen to offer little that changes our fundamental view of events. Most, moreover, are very selective in their coverage given the restrictions of the book format. Yet, many do have broader ambitions at heart: the executive editor of the Annals of Communism, Jonathan Brent, wrote in his fascinating account of the conception of the series that he hoped the project would explore the mechanisms by which the Soviet system operated, and his initial interest in obvious ‘political’ topics surrounding the state extended as the discussions progressed to encompass social and cultural topics.¹² In this vein, many recent publications, not least the proliferation of documents from soviets at all levels, include much material on a wide range of issues that stray well beyond the scope of ‘high’ politics.

A final underused and rapidly expanding resource are the various elements of the print culture of the revolutionary period. Microfilmed collections of newspapers (and some journals) have long been available to researchers. Some, like those of major newspapers such as Izvestiia or Pravda, have been well used (and are now digitized), although usually this use forms part of other projects rather than as a study of the newspapers themselves. Other collections seem to be lesser known, such as the extensive collection of revolutionary and civil war newspapers held on microfilm in a few major libraries.¹³ Many of these images are poorly scanned and barely readable, while the runs of individual newspapers can be frustratingly brief (an issue or two), but these microfilms open up a world beyond the major press into local press and, sometimes, the publications of particular social and professional groups. These have been supplemented in recent years by various digitization projects; newspapers, journals, and contemporary pamphlets accessible through the sites of archives and libraries across Russia and elsewhere (even Wikipedia), large-scale funded projects outside of Russia,¹⁴ and numerous collections of visual materials like posters and postcards. There is a wealth of information in these resources, while there remains a curious lack of studies of print culture across the revolutionary period, even in comparison with years before and after.

This discussion, though, has shifted the balance from research questions to their empirical base; or, in other words, there are clearly plenty of available sources to continue studying the Russian Revolution from a variety of perspectives without travelling to Russia, but is this likely to add anything in terms of new research questions or directions? It is difficult to say with any certainty what huge swathes of material might reveal to researchers with their own particular interests and questions. It does seem likely, though, that materials from institutions can continue to help us explore issues surrounding power and authority during the revolution. As a recent study reminded us, power is a much-used term, but power does not simply lie around during the revolution waiting for one group or another to pick it up and exercise it. Instead, the loss of power and authority, and their reconstitution, are long, complicated, and usually incomplete processes that require concrete actions at the centre and on the ground.¹⁵ All this is evident in numerous reports contained in archives and newspapers. The struggle for state control, the extension of this control, the various means used to exercise it, and the problems and conflicts that surround the exercise of power, remain central to any understanding of revolutionary processes and dynamics.

There is also likely to be much more that can be said about questions of identity and other aspects of people’s everyday lives through reports on policies and conditions and, in particular, the wealth of materials in contemporary publications like newspapers, journals and pamphlets. Newspapers are also one of the few means to hear the voices of otherwise hidden social and occupational groups in the revolution, whether through reports on congresses and conferences or articles by reporters on contemporary concerns that have long been forgotten. The ongoing prevalence of adverts and even sports reports still have much to tell historians about life and culture during the revolution.

It is also clear that our understanding of the imperial dimensions of revolution can be extended still further despite recent progress, whether, as noted above, through the increased use of archives and materials from countries that formed part of the former Russian Empire or through our increased understanding of race and nationality as key factors in the revolutionary process. It is more obvious than ever that multiple, intersecting identities complicated people’s experiences of revolution, with traditional class, gender and social divides complemented (and complicated) by those surrounding race, religion, and national / local identities.¹⁶

An increased focus on contemporary publications might also emphasize the role of public discourse and help us to explore further its nature. What struck me immediately from my own research into the hundreds of pamphlets published in millions of copies between the two revolutions in 1917 alone (never mind the surrounding years) is the sheer range of their discussion: topics stretch from aspects of Russian and world history considered relevant to the revolution to contemporary issues surrounding political and social reform; their range stretches from Russia and Europe to examples drawn from numerous other countries across the globe depending on the knowledge and agenda of the author. The February Revolution prompted an explosion of debate and, as a revolution still driven by print culture for all the limitations surrounding literacy, the full extent of this debate can only be appreciated by examining what people were reading (or listening to) and the different views that formed the basis of debates. The revolution was also a global revolution, not just because – as is so often discussed – 1917 had repercussions across the globe in the years that followed, but because Russia’s revolutionaries were shaped and influenced by existing revolutionary traditions, while all commentators drew on the experiences of other countries in the search for understanding and possible future directions.¹⁷

In short, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had a seismic impact on research into Russian history, not least for those of us researching the revolutionary period. Assumptions and practices have been forced to change in the aftermath of February 2022 and some avenues look likely to remain closed for the foreseeable future, perhaps for many years. Yet there remains promise amid these challenges. Other avenues remain open, some of these are under-explored, and some new ones will undoubtedly emerge in the future as researchers engage with existing approaches more creatively and explore the available sources more extensively. The light the post-Soviet ‘archival revolution’ has shed on the Russian Revolution, then, remains too strong to be extinguished by the onset of a darker relationship with Russia since the invasion of Ukraine.

Acknowledgement

The author is very grateful to Claire McCallum, Ben Phillips, and Aaron Retish for their comments on an earlier version of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Matthew Rendle

Matthew Rendle is Associate Professor of Russian History at the University of Exeter. He is the author of two books, two edited collections and numerous articles on the revolutionary period in Russian history including, most recently, The State versus The People: Revolutionary Justice in Russia's Civil War, 1917-1922 (Oxford University Press, 2020).

Notes

1 See, most obviously, Putin’s article ‘On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians’, which formed the basis for the later collection: Ob istoricheskom edinstve russkikh i ukraintsev: Dokumenty.

2 Kuromiya, ‘Russia’s Undue Influence on Western Scholars and Scholarship’.

3 The latter point was made strongly in von Hagen, ‘The Archival Gold Rush and Historical Agendas in the Post-Soviet Era’. See also Kotkin, ‘1991 and the Russian Revolution’; and Holquist, ‘A Tocquevillean “Archival Revolution”’. For a good survey of how archives have interacted with other sources to develop a specific field, see Solomon, ‘Understanding the History of Soviet Criminal Justice’.

4 See Wade, ‘The Revolution at One Hundred’. There are articles on the literature in other languages in the same issue. On the provinces more specifically, see Novikova, ‘The Russian Revolution from a Provincial Perspective’.

5 Amid the huge challenges facing Russia’s archives after 1991, and the resulting debates over contentious practices and potential regulations, it remains notable how far the Director of the State Archive of the Russian Federation promoted and prioritized the publication of sources by any means possible; see ‘On the Russian Archives: An Interview with Sergei V. Mironenko’.

6 For the revolutionary period, see, for example, the articles in two volumes of the Russia’s Great War and Revolution project: Lohr, Tolz, Semyonov, and von Hagen (eds.), The Empire and Nationalism at War and Marshall, Steinberg and Sabol (eds.), The Global Impacts of Russia’s Great War and Revolution.

7 See https://www.hoover.org/library-archives/collections/archives-soviet-communist-party-and-soviet-state-microfilm-collection [last accessed 27 October 2023].

8 The publishers noted a focus on the ‘highest policy-making organs of the Communist Party’, but certain types of organs were selected: see p. 26 of their guide at https://about.proquest.com/globalassets/proquest/files/excel-files/slavic_studies_catalog.pdf [last accessed 31 October 2023].

9 The guide produced by Harvard University Library provides a good introduction to these resources: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/soviethistoryarchives/revolution_civilwar. See also the ‘Digital Handbook for Research on Soviet History’ produced by the Davis Center at Harvard; https://dccollection.share.library.harvard.edu/ [both last accessed 2 November 2023].

10 https://yalebooks.co.uk/search-results/?series=yle40-annals-of-communism-series [last accessed 31 October 2023].

11 These are now online: http://docs.historyrussia.org/ru/nodes/27599-seriya-locale-nil-publikatsii-locale-nil; http://docs.historyrussia.org/ru/nodes/3-seriya-locale-nil-politicheskie-partii-rossii-konets-xix-locale-nil-pervaya-tret-hh-veka-dokumentalnoe-nasledie-locale-nil; and http://docs.historyrussia.org/ru/nodes/90510-seriya-locale-nil-rossiya-xx-vek-dokumenty-locale-nil [last accessed 31 October 2023].

12 Brent, Inside the Stalin Archives, esp. 5-6, 48-50, 235-9, 322.

13 Entitled ‘Newspapers from the Era of the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War 1901–1922’, the best sense of the hundreds of titles is obtained by typing this into the library catalogue at Harvard University.

14 On the latter, see East View’s open-access collection of Imperial Russian Newspapers, some of which include 1917: https://www.eastview.com/resources/gpa/crl-irn/ [last accessed 31 October 2023]. It is also notable that libraries outside of Russia have extensive holdings of contemporary publications, including pamphlets, ranging from the obvious libraries at Helsinki, the Hoover Institution, and the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam, to less well-known collections in, for instance, the University of Chicago and the London Library.

15 Engelstein, Russia in Flames, xviii, xxiii, 264.

16 For an interesting discussion, see Gerasimov, ‘The Great Imperial Revolution’. For the importance of de-colonisation more broadly, see the H-Russia discussion as an introduction to some of the key issues; available at https://networks.h-net.org/group/317 [last accessed 28 November 2023].

17 This is something that I explored further in Rendle, ‘Making Sense of 1917’.