The Issue of Cooperation of Mykhailo Hrushevsky with the Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries in Ukrainian Emigration Historiography
Abstract
The paper deals with the issue of cooperation between M. Hrushevsky and the Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (the UPSR) in terms of Ukrainian emigration historiography. We believe that due to the fact that the Ukrainian state had failed to defend its independence during the revolution of 1917-1923, and the results of historiographical work in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic could not be considered truly national ones, the first steps in the study of M. Hrushevsky’s political activity were made precisely in emigration.
The journalistic works of the contemporaries of the politician were analyzed, among which were the works of M. Shapoval, N. Grygoryev, A. Zhyvotko, V. Vynnychenko, I. Mazepa, D. Dontsov, V. Lypynsky. All of them mostly negatively evaluated the political activity of M. Hrushevsky in the Socialist Revolutionaries Party, did not understand his supposedly «pro-Soviet» views. At the same time, the mentioned facts of cooperation between the historian and the UPSR, which of course have historical value, deserve attention.
Also, the papers and monographs of the most famous Ukrainian emigrant researchers who shed light on the issue under study: P. Khrystiuk, V. Doroshenko, D. Doroshenko, O. Nazaruk, I. Krypiakevych, N. Polonska-Vasylenko, D. Solovey, M. Stakhiv, O. Ogloblyn, and others were reviewed.
It is noted that historical studies of the 20s – 30s of the 20th century were mainly of a descriptive biographical character. Researchers paid little attention to the analysis of the questions why M. Hrushevsky began to cooperate with the UPRS, how his active party activity in emigration could be explained, and why he returned to Ukraine. In the 40s – first half of the 60s of the 20th century happened no dramatic changes in the study of M. Hrushevsky’s political heritage of 1917-1924, though the number of historical works and their scientific level certainly increased.
It is concluded that on the one hand, the authors of the analyzed works highly appreciated M. Hrushevsky’s contribution to the development of Ukrainian historical science, but on the other hand, they underestimated and criticized his political activity. Besides, the fact of the historian’ cooperation with the UPSR was considered mainly in the context of other events of the Ukrainian revolution, and no separate research works were written on that problem. It meant that Ukrainian emigrant researchers did not conduct the systematic study of M. Hrushevsky’s party activity. Although that did not prevent most of them from active criticism of Socialist Revolutionaries’, supposedly «pro-Soviet» views of the politician. At the same time, the return of the former chairman of the Ukrainian Central Rada (UCR) to Ukraine in 1924 was also estimated negatively.
