A Look into the Archives: The Russian Review on Russian & Soviet Archives

The term “archival revolution” first appeared in Russian Review in a 2002 article by Norman M. Naimark even though discussions surrounding the archival revolution were widespread throughout the 1990s. Archives have always been of importance and interest to historians around the world, but they were of particular concern to scholars working on Russia and the Soviet Union. Since many archival holdings were inaccessible to Western scholars before the fall of the Soviet Union, the paucity of materials often dictated the subjects that scholars could choose to examine. These concerns appear as early as 1957 in TheRussian Review, expressed in an article highlighting some of the challenges presented by Soviet archival policies. There was little written about the future of the archives because there was little optimism that the archives would open. 

After 1991, distinct shift occurred, as more speculation arose about the future of Soviet and Russian studies. Discussions took place on the scope of sources and the increased ease with which foreign and domestic scholars could conduct research. In 2015, nearly twenty-five years after the fall of the Soviet Union, The Russian Review published an issue that included several articles about the archival revolution. The articles in that issue focus less on future potential, and more on how archival access shaped past scholarship.

Before the Archival Revolution 

Armstrong, John A. “Clues to the Soviet Political Archives.”The Russian Review 16, no. 2 (1957): 47–52.

Although Russian Review did not see much written about archival access in the Soviet Union prior to the end of the 20th century, a 1957 article by John A. Armstrong reveals the cunning ways that scholars were able to consider sources to which they did not have access. Armstrong makes a case for analyzing unpublished dissertations of Soviet scholars to uncover specific primary sources they consulted and the collections they were located in. This strategy, according to Armstrong, would enable Western scholars to locate primary sources without relying on convoluted and unhelpful guides of Soviet archives. The citations of these dissertations, therefore, provide valuable assistance to the research process simply in offering available collections that might not have been found otherwise. .  Emphasizing the quality of the scholarship, Armstrong makes the case that the archival sources used in Soviet author’s dissertations are a viable way for Western authors to understand Soviet archives, alleviating the obstacles faced by historians. 

Early Reactions to Archival Revolution 

1. Hoffmann, David L. “A First Glimpse into the Moscow Party Archive.”The Russian Review 50, no. 4 (1991): 484–86.
2. Franklin, Simon. “Pre-Mongol Rus’: New Sources, New Perspectives?”The Russian Review 60, no. 4 (2001): 465–73. 
3. Naimark, Norman M. “Cold War Studies and New Archival Materials on Stalin.”The Russian Review 61, no. 1 (2002): 1–15.
4. Raleigh, Donald J. “Doing Soviet History: The Impact of the Archival Revolution.” The Russian Review 61, no. 1 (2002): 16–24.

In the first decade of the archival revolution from 1991 to 2002, scholars began to reckon with the changes they witnessed in the archives. Hoffmann’s 1991 article was an early contribution that describes the archival revolution in its most transformative period. It was not until about a decade later that other Russian Review authors began to contend with the impacts they witnessed. Hoffmann demonstrates an optimistic view of the opening of the Moscow Party Archives, seeing it as a key source for Cold War and Soviet studies. He expresses a strong sense of hope that archival access will continue to widen. Naimark’s 2002 article shares a similar sentiment that the archival revolution modernized the study of the Cold War and Soviet history. More specifically, it enabled the exponential growth of studies in Cold War history as new material generated an increase in the literature on the subject. 

Raleigh suggests a more causal relationship between the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the archives. During the Gorbachev era, writers, historians, and the public at large sought to reexamine Soviet events and policies. This newfound interest in the past saw a subsequent revival of regional studies, historical analysis, and academic publications that enabled Western access to archives, museums, and collections. Both Raleigh and Naimark comment briefly on the struggles that historians faced prior to the archival revolution, which had not been written about much beforehand. Naimark’s article also stands out in comparison to articles a decade earlier not just because he uses the term “archival revolution” but also because he indicates that there were a handful of remaining archives, that remained highly inaccessible, such as the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Noting the optimism of the 1990s, the authors point that there was a sense that the archives had changed dramatically in their accessibility, yet by the 2000s there was disappointment that the full potential they had once imagined had not been reached.  

Evaluating Impacts

1. Kragh, Martin, and Stefan Hedlund. “Researching Soviet Archives: An Introduction.”The Russian Review 74, no. 3 (2015): 373–76.
2. Fitzpatrick, Sheila. “Impact of the Opening of Soviet Archives on Western Scholarship on Soviet Social History.”The Russian Review 74, no. 3 (2015): 377–400.

In 2015, Russian Review published several articles evaluating the impacts of the archival revolution, encapsulated by the articles written by Fitzpatrick, as well as Kragh and Hedlund.  Nearly twenty-five years after the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of many Soviet archives, these articles demonstrate more clearly than previous scholarship the changes before and after the archival revolution. The authors delineate what the archives enabled scholars to do— an opportunity to reassess and interrupt both Soviet and Russian history. Kragh and Hedlund’s 2015 article is distinct because it specifically defines the colloquial term “archival revolution” and what it has come to mean; it represents the immense change in archival institutions following the fall of the Soviet Union. The 2015 articles assess general trends more thoroughly, trends which suggested that archival changes had revolutionized the humanities as a whole. 

The 2015 articles clarify that even before the archival revolution there was some ability to access Soviet archives, especially in places like Latvia and Ukraine. Both articles argue that while the archival revolution facilitated research with a greater scope of archival material and therefore the ability to produce more nuanced scholarship, issues still remained. Greater access did not completely eradicate questions and debates concerning Soviet and Russian history, as there were still disputes, questions, and varying interpretations. There were also comparisons made to the work that scholars could complete prior to the archival revolution. Fitzpatrick, in her article, demonstrates that the inaccessibility of the archives before the fall of the Soviet Union shaped her work in significant ways.  She writes that the archival revolution resulted in “changing our situation from one roughly comparable to that of researchers on early modern Europe (working with the limited range of sources generated by a relatively unambitious state with a small literate population) to that of researchers on any other developed twentieth-century state (working with a huge array of records generated by a modern bureaucratic state and literature society).”

 Finally, the archival revolution greatly impacted the type of history that most appealed to researchers. Before the opening of the archives, the content that was available steered researchers to social history, which was popular in its own right at the time. Yet the 1990s saw a revival of political history because there was a wider scope of new information for scholars to consider. Therefore, it is not just the fact that historians had more access to archives, documents, and catalogs which enabled them to preview sources that were in specific collections, but also that the changes in the archives shaped the subjects that were most interesting to study and the manner in which scholars approached them. 

Conclusion 

The question of archival access and the production of historical knowledge has contemporary relevance as well. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 led to further restrictions on travel and access to Russian archives and libraries. Furthermore, many scholars able to travel to Russia are unwilling to do so in the current political conditions. Not only is Russia inaccessible as a place of research but Ukraine continues to be unreachable due to destruction of archives. A once viable and interesting place to study both Russian and Eastern European history the decimation of cultural and governmental locations erases primary sources that had the potential for unique scholarship. For example, in February 2022, Russian troops destroyed The Security Service of Ukraine building which housed a KGB archive that provided Soviet repressions in Ukraine. As a result, the field must once again creatively reimagine how to write the critical histories necessary in this day and age. 

Written by Olivia Naum, a student at Lafayette