History Died a Little at Stuttgart

History died a little at Stuttgart, where 2,000 historians from around the world gathered during the last week of August for the 16th International Congress of Historical Sciences. One does not expect that history will advance at such meet­ings, but one expects, at least, that his­tory will not retreat. But the discipline of history—the critical search for elusive truth—has in the course of the last four meetings (Moscow, 1970; San Francisco, 1975; Bucharest, 1980; and Stuttgart, 1985) increasingly become a casualty.

Soviet and Eastern European historians were at Stuttgart in record numbers, well organized, well disciplined, and well prepared. Among the advance preparations of the Soviets for the Con­gress was a draft resolution incorporating the current Soviet view on “peaceful coexistence” and nuclear disarmament, specifically on “halting the arms race on the earth and for prevention of its shift to the outer space.” The resolution was presented as an “Appeal of the Participants of the Round Table ‘Historians and the Problems of Peace Mainte­nance,'” one of the many sessions at the Congress.

Furthermore, the “Round Table” fea­tured a parade of Soviet and Eastern European speakers reiterating the im­portance of “peace” and the commit­ment of the Socialist World to that ideal. Needless to say, “peace” was never de­fined, particularly in the context of Marxist-Leninist writings in which true “peace” is attained only with the tri­umph of Socialism and the destruction of Capitalism.

During the session I heard no refer­ence to events in Afghanistan where the repression of “counterrevolutionaries” and “imperialists” by Soviet troops is defined (in Soviet theory) as one aspect of the “struggle for peace.” Nor did I hear any reference to the plight of the Helsinki monitors in the Soviet Union: those protohistorians who sought merely to report on Soviet compliance with the Helsinki Agreements of 1975 and who, for their pains, found themselves in jail, in exile, or dead. Nor did I hear any reference to the plight of hundreds of Czechoslovak historians expelled from their jobs in the 1960s and 1970s, prevented from doing research or writ­ing, and sometimes thrown in jailcause of their refusal to hew the line laid down by Czechoslovakia’s Communist leadership. A representative of those dissident Czech historians sat quietly outside the meeting hall seeking sub­scribers to a petition for their relief. Nor did I hear any reference to those histori­ans—such as the Pole Bronislaw Gere­mek—who were scheduled to attend the congress but who were refused permis­sion to do so by their governments.

A few American wandered in and out of the session while speeches in support of “peace” droned on. Some Americans were skeptical, some amused, some appalled at what was go­ing on. No American in the audience rose to speak either in behalf of peace, or of war (the rhetoric of the speakers for “peace” implied the existence of a group of antagonists in favor of war). Academician Sergei Tikhvinsky, Chairman of the Soviet National Committee of Historians and chair of the session, was joined later on the platform by Professor Gordon Craig of Stanford, first vice president of the International Committee of Historical Sciences (the administrative organization that prepares the congresses), and by Professor T. C. Barker of the London School of Eco­nomics.

The three cosponsored the resolution that emerged from the meeting, which expressed deep concern over “the dan­gers posed by the escalation of nuclear armaments and believing that the per­spective provided by their discipline de­ serves serious consideration by national leaders charged with the formulation of policy, urgently appeals to all national governments to implement a universal freeze on the production of nuclear weapons, and a cessation of nuclear testing as a necessary prelude to effec­tive arms control and carefully phased disarmament.” Academician Tikh­vinsky, without taking a formal vote, declared the resolution approved by the 300 historians present. The newspapers and television in Germany gave the res­olution good play the next day.

According to Prof. Tikhvinsky’s lead article in Social Sciences, a quarterly jour­nal of the Section of the Social Sciences, USSR Academy of Sciences (Vol. 16, no. 3,  1985), the cover of which is embla­zoned with the message “For Peace and Against the Threat of War: For the 16th International Congress of Historical Sci­ences,” “a stubborn struggle is being waged [in the world today] between labor and capital, between the forces of national liberation and those of imperi­alism, the forces of peace and progress and those of reaction.” In the context of this struggle Tikhvinsky underlined the importance of “the study of the revolu­tionary form of the progression  of his­tory and of  the conditions  of its disap­pearance with the worldwide establish­ment of a communist society.”

The “peace” for which the resolution of the “Round Table” chaired by Tikh­vinsky appealed is, in the Soviet view, the culmination of the inevitable pro­cesses of history, the scientific laws of which it is the Soviet historians’ duty to elucidate. That “peace” will be achieved only through the “historically inevita­ble” process of ideological struggle, na­tional liberation movements, establish­ment of Socialist states, and the eventual attainment of Communism. At that point the historian’s task, as Tikhvinsky noted, will be done because the process that was his task to explain will have been completed. It will, however, be the peace of the grave for  those  historians who do not accept the Soviet formulation. The fate of the dissident historians in the USSR, Poland, and Czechoslovakia should provide sufficient evidence for that conclusion.

History did not die at Stuttgart, but some who claimed the right to speak for history pushed it nearer to its grave.

Resolution 1985 Business Meeting

Resolved: While recognizing that any indi­vidual serving as an officer of the Interna­tional Committee of Historical Sciences (the international body with which the American Historical Association is affiliated) serves not as an instructed representative either of his own country or of the AHA, it is at the same time incompatible with such an individual’s obligation to the discipline of history and to his colleagues in the AHA for him or her to sponsor, or join in sponsoring, resolutions asserting the special competence of “histori­ans” or of the “historical profession” (other than himself or herself as an individual) to make recommendations concerning political issues, whether of a national or international character.

Statement to Accompany Resolution: I ap­preciate the willingness of those who have joined me in presenting the accompanying resolution. Some agreed to join me despite the fact that they approved the sentiments expressed in Professor Craig’s, Professor Barker’s, and Professor Tikhvinsky’s nuclear freeze resolution at Stuttgart. Some agreed to join me, despite doubts about the wisdom of my resolution, in order to encourage debate about this issue. The resolution applies only to the American representative to the International Committee of Historical Sci­ences. It does not prohibit the American representative from sponsoring any resolu­tion—even a political resolution—so long as he or she makes it clear that he or she does not claim the authority of the historical pro­fession, of which he or she is merely one member, or of history as a discipline, of which he or she is merely one participant. Moreover, my resolution does not prevent anyone from signing a petition relating to historical or political issues. While the line between historical and political issues may be debatable, my resolution would not prevent anyone, including the American repre­sentative to the International Committee of Historical Sciences, as an individual, from signing the petition in support of Czech historians that many signed at Stuttgart. Nor would my resolution affect the right of the American Historical Association, as an orga­nization, from taking any stand upon any matter that it judges appropriate under its constitution and bylaws.