Libmonster ID: UA-12945

During the three revolutions in our country, a galaxy of remarkable women was formed, who took an important place in political and cultural life. It is enough to mention I. F. Armand, N. K. Krupskaya, A. M. Kollontai, and E. D. Stasova. Anna Mikhailovna Pankratova, a revolutionary underground worker in her youth, also belonged to this galaxy, and after the victory of the Great October Revolution, she became a scientist and historian, a prominent public and party figure.

A. M. Pankratova was born on February 9, 1897 in Odessa in a working-class family and went through a harsh life school. However, the difficulties that fell to the lot of her family did not prevent the talented and purposeful girl from graduating from high school, and then from Novorossiysk University. Since her youth, she was attracted to social sciences. Accustomed to always being in the midst of the masses, Pankratova does not tear herself away from them even during her studies. As a high school student, she actively participates in revolutionary circles; as a student, she teaches at an adult school, and fights for women's equality. After the overthrow of the autocracy, a young revolutionary joins the ranks of fighters for Soviet power. As you know, in the south of Ukraine, this struggle has taken on a particularly complex and protracted character. The Soviets, which had won in Odessa in January 1918, were soon liquidated by the interventionists, who restored the rule of the landlords and capitalists. For Pankratova and other revolutionaries, a period of hard and heroic underground struggle begins, involving dangers, hardships, and inevitable sacrifices. Anna Mikhailovna participates in the organization of partisan detachments, helps arrested comrades, and is a passionate propagandist of Leninist ideas. Her first printed works appeared in the illegal press. In an editorial published in the underground newspaper Odessky Kommunist about the shooting of 17 young communists by the White Guards, Pankratova wrote: "We will not speak over your untimely graves, but will do so in order to cover your graves with the red banner of the socialist revolution even before your ashes have time to cool down.1

It was during the years of the civil war and the intervention that Anna Mikhailovna was formed into a courageous fighter, full of faith in the final victory of communism. Even then, it was characterized by another quality - passionate internationalism. Conditions in the south of Ukraine (ex. Novorossiya) with its diverse national composition contributed to the development of this trait. Shoulder to shoulder, like brothers, Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, Poles, Germans, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Moldovans and others fought for a new life here.A. M. Pankratova later said about herself: "Internationalism is one of the most precious ideas for me. This noble idea found a place in my mind not so much under the influence of the literature I read, but rather grew out of my personal life experience. " 2
In February 1919, in the difficult conditions of the underground, Pankratova joined the Bolshevik Party. Recalling those heroic years at the end of her life, she wrote:: "I was quite young in 1919-1920, both in terms of age and party membership,

1 " From the history of the working class and the Revolutionary movement. Collection of articles in memory of Academician A.M. Pankratova", Moscow, 1958, pp. 8-9.

2 Ibid., p. 5.

page 104

and from the experience of life. But I had undivided faith in the victory of our great cause, and a youthful readiness to devote myself entirely to the cause of the party and the Soviet government, regardless of anything personal. " 3
In February 1920, when Odessa was liberated from the invaders and the White Guards, the Communists came out of hiding. The country was entering a peaceful period of development. Next in line were the tasks of restoring the national economy and involving the broad masses of the people, including women, in this work. Pankratova is elected to leadership positions in the provincial party organization and leads the life of a professional party member. Its credibility among the workers is constantly growing. This is why she was elected to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine and moved to Kharkiv, the capital of the Ukrainian SSR. Being one of the leaders of the Women's department of the Central Committee of the CP (b)For example, she is engaged in political and educational work among women. Then the party sends Pankratova, along with other propagandists, economic managers and organizers, to the Urals, the old center of the metallurgical industry.

It is well known that one of the most important pillars of the Bolshevik party was the factory committees. Born spontaneously, they played a major role in the preparation of the armed uprising in October 1917, and then in strengthening the power of the Soviets. Now it became necessary, with the help of the factory committees and trade unions, to mobilize the working masses to solve the immediate tasks of economic construction. Pankratova became the chairman of one of the factory committees of the Urals, and then - a major figure in the trade union movement. Not limited to practical work, it collects information about the past and present of Ural workers. Thus, out of her party and political activities organically grows a scientific problem - the history of the working class of our country.

Pankratova's interest in this problem cannot be considered accidental. The working class, which for the first time in history had defeated the exploiters and begun to build a new, socialist society, could not help but be interested in its past, present, and future. Pankratova was one of the brightest exponents of this natural trend. She enthusiastically writes down the memories of workers, studies archival documents. It is also concerned with two other problems that are inextricably linked to the first-the history of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the Revolution of 1905 - 1907. These three topics, which attracted Pankratova in the 1920s, determined the main direction of her scientific research.

The situation for scientific work was favorable. The socialist transformation of economic and cultural life was possible only on the basis of the latest achievements in science and technology. Based on this, the party and the Government put forward two interrelated tasks: on the one hand, winning over to the side of socialism and using the old intelligentsia; on the other, training cadres of the new Soviet intelligentsia from the ranks of the working class. To implement the second task, back in 1919, labor schools were organized to train students from working - class youth, and in early 1921, the Institute of the Red Professorship (ICP) was organized to train scientists from among the Communists. Pankratova, sent to this institute by the Central Committee of the Party, was immediately enrolled in the 2nd year. M. N. Pokrovsky's seminars on the history of the USSR played a certain role in shaping her worldview.

While studying at the IKP, she prepared her first monograph, "The Factory Committees of Russia in the Struggle for the Socialist Factory", published in 1923. This work was based on her personal impressions, memoirs of Ural workers, the press and a huge archive material relating not only to the Urals, but also to all the most important industrial regions of the country. Pankratova traced the historical path of the Russian working class, the emergence of the first representative bodies in its midst, and finally the birth of a new type of factory committees - revolutionary detachments of the working class. A large chapter in the monograph already attests to the breadth of her outlook at that time: "Factory Committees in Western Europe and their historical role in the struggle for Socialism".

Pankratova's interest in the international workers ' movement was connected with her business trip to Germany in 1923, which was followed by her graduation (already in 1924).

3 Ibid., p. 39.

page 105

The second monograph is " Factory committees in the German Revolution (1918-1923)". This study was directed against the reformist leadership of trade unions in Germany. In addition to the German labor movement, Pankratova carefully studied and compared the speeches of the proletarians of Italy, France and other countries. This gave her the opportunity to publish the pamphlet " Factory committees and trade unions (Russia, Germany, Italy, France) "(Moscow, 1924).

In connection with the 20th anniversary of the first Russian Revolution and the 10th anniversary of the Great October Revolution, Pankratova's thoughts are increasingly focused on their history. It is hatching a plan to create a work on the Russian proletariat that would cover the history of its formation and the entire path of its struggle, including the October Revolution and subsequent socialist construction. According to Pankratova, the experience of the working class in the Land of the Soviets was to become the property of the international proletariat. An excellent organizer, Pankratova engages broad circles of the Soviet public in studying the history of the working class. Especially great opportunities opened up for her in the late 1920s, when she became an employee of the Communist Academy and was elected (in 1929) a full member. Pankratova undertakes the preparation of collective works on the history of the proletariat, develops a program and methodology for these studies, and initiates the collection of documents. The result of this work was the publication of a wide range of sources, as well as the publication of 22 collections of articles under the title "History of the Proletariat of the USSR".

Pankratova left a great legacy, including several hundred scientific and popular scientific works. They cover a wide range of issues: social relations in Kievan Rus; feudalism and the genesis of capitalism; heroic traditions of the peoples of our country. Pankratova's main research topic-the history of the working class and the revolutionary movement in Russia - is reflected in a particularly large number (more than 200) of in-depth research papers. A significant contribution to science is also made by Pankratova's works devoted to the post-October period of Russian history - the history of the Leninist Party and the Soviet state, as well as Soviet foreign and national policy. Pankratova's politically sharp statements criticizing bourgeois (especially fascist) ideology are widely known .4
Pankratova's entire activity was imbued with the idea of arming the masses with an understanding of the laws of social development based on the Marxist-Leninist method. The history of the working class of our country, she said, "this heroic, noble history is not only history... not only the past, but it is also a great example of the future that working class detachments all over the world are striving for."5 Until the end of her life, she remained a fighter for a better future - for communism, linking all her thoughts to this goal.

Recognition of Pankratova's services to the party and the people was reflected in her election as a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU at the XIX and XX party congresses, a full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1953), and a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (1954).

The activities of A. M. Pankratova in the 30-50s, the image of this remarkable communist, we will try to reveal on the basis of our memoirs 6 .

* * *

In the autumn of 1934, the History Department of Moscow State University was established and work began on new history textbooks for secondary and higher schools. These measures were inextricably linked to the changing domestic and international situation of the country, which continued to build socialism. After the seizure of power by the Nazis in Germany, the Soviet Union was in grave danger. The Communist Party and the Soviet Government faced a challenge-

4 See Bibliography of the works of A. M. Pankratova. "From the History of the Working Class and the Revolutionary Movement", pp. 53-70.

5 Ibid., p. 6.

6 This is followed by the memoirs of N. M. Druzhinin (up to p. 111), then by E. I. Druzhinina.

page 106

cha: to mobilize the broad masses of the working people to resist the enemy; to preserve the principles of internationalism and inspire the peoples of the Soviet Union to fight for their independence and defend the gains of socialism. M. N. Pokrovsky's penchant for abstract sociologism and his disregard for the national liberation traditions of the Russian people did not correspond to this task. It was necessary to equip not only the intelligentsia, but also the broad masses of working people with concrete historical knowledge, inspire them with examples of the heroic struggle for the Motherland, and strengthen spiritual ties between all the peoples of the young socialist state. The teaching of history, based on the Marxist-Leninist method, was intended to serve as a generalization of the centuries-old life experience of the peoples of our country, saturated with rich political events and fanned by the glory of outstanding historical figures. Civic education of the younger generations could not be limited to the study of national history, it required no less in-depth and detailed acquaintance with universal history, specific coverage of the world historical process.

Under these conditions, the choice of heads of departments of the Moscow State University Faculty of History, and first of all, the Department of History of the USSR, was of great importance. A. M. Pankratova, who had already gained a high reputation for her dedication to the party, scientific research and organizational skills, was appointed to this responsible post. I was also invited to join the Faculty of History. It was here that my personal acquaintance with Pankratova took place. From the very beginning, she impressed me with her extraordinary friendliness and attention to the interlocutor, combined with her exuberant energy and ability to bring together the people with whom she worked and led. From that moment on, for 22 years I almost continuously communicated with Pankratova, first at the University, then (since 1937) at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, during the war - in the Kazakh branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and after the war - in the editorial board of the journal "Voprosy Istorii".

In 1955, together with Pankratova, who headed the Soviet delegation, we went to the X International Congress of Historical Sciences in Rome. More than once we participated in the same sessions and meetings, sometimes very important (for example, in the discussion of the draft textbook of political economy, which lasted for a month). I visited Anna Mikhaylovna many times, conducted scientific conversations with her, and shared the joys and sorrows of our scientific life. I had the opportunity to get to know Pankratova well as a person, and my first impressions of her gradually became more complete and comprehensive.

What traits of her personality do I consider most characteristic and important? Pankratova combined a deep commitment to principles with a responsiveness to people, a passionate belief in the correctness of the communist worldview with a constant desire to practically implement it. She was distinguished for her directness of judgment, and was never guided by selfish motives. Pankratova loved science and after her first successful works at the Institute of the Red Professorship and at the Comacademy, she lived with the dream of writing a large study on the history of the Russian proletariat. A chronic workload of many scientific and organizational tasks prevented her from fulfilling this plan. Many people came to her with various requests, various tasks were assigned to her, the phone in her apartment rang almost continuously - in such an environment her life of the 30s and 50s took place. She gave people a great deal, but she was not able to fulfill all her extensive plans.

Pankratova's energy and organizational talent were clearly revealed during her two-year tenure as head of the Department of Soviet History at Moscow State University. She skillfully guided the transition of historians to a new teaching method. There were frequent meetings of the department, where controversial issues were discussed, curricula and programs were developed, rules for working with graduate students were outlined, their reports were discussed in the form of scientific disputes, and drafts of documentary collections were compiled for classes with students. Pankratova was able to quickly unite a team of teachers, which included old and young professors from the former Russian Academy of Social Sciences research Institutes and communist teachers from the Institute of History of the Communist Academy. Although Pankratova was for-

page 107

As a local, she often presided over the meetings herself, giving direction to all the work that went on amicably and successfully. Sometimes she made principal reports and headed commissions (for example, on the submission of degrees and titles).

At the same time, a history textbook for secondary schools was being prepared, which had to meet the new requirements for a consistent and concrete presentation of events with the necessary Marxist generalizations. A competition was announced, and several author groups were formed, in particular Pankratova's group with the participation of specialists in the history of feudalism. In the spring of 1936, Pankratova's group mostly finished working on the textbook, but one of the authors dropped out, and at the suggestion of Anna Mikhailovna, I had to urgently write chapters on the history of the XIX century. The contest was over a year later. A textbook prepared at the V. I. Lenin Moscow Pedagogical Institute under the supervision of A. V. Shestakov was accepted for teaching in secondary schools. Textbooks by A. M. Pankratova and I. I. Mints received incentive awards.

When the new academic year began at the university in the fall of 1936, we learned that Pankratova had been transferred to work in Saratov. From conversations with former university graduate students who worked in Saratov, I know that in her research and organizational activities at Saratov University, she showed the same features that distinguished her in Moscow. In 1938, a collection of articles devoted to N. G. Chernyshevsky and a collection of documents related to the trial of the great revolutionary democrat were published in Saratov under the editorship of Pankratova.

Anna Mikhailovna returned to Moscow in 1939. We met her at the newly formed Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which was headed by Academician B. D. Grekov. The Second World War was already underway. Although a non-aggression pact was concluded with Hitler's Germany, the possibility of its aggression against the Soviet Union did not disappear, and everyone was on their guard. Issues of foreign policy and the techniques of diplomatic art acquired an actual political significance at this time. A. M. Pankratova, S. V. Bakhrushin, S. D. Skazkin, I. I. Mints and others were entrusted with the task of preparing a multi-volume History of Diplomacy (Pankratova, together with Mints, was to cover the relations of the Soviet state with bourgeois countries in the period between the World Wars). This important government task was successfully completed. The authors of the collective work were awarded the State Prize.

At the Moscow State University and the Institute of History, forces were mobilized for scientific and patriotic propaganda for the defense of the Motherland. It was at this time that Pankratova took an active part in criticizing Pokrovsky's mistakes. In the face of the threat of fascist aggression, overcoming outdated and untenable views on the most important events in Russian history became of great political importance.

In the first months of the war, Pankratova was assigned a new responsibility: in connection with the evacuation of the director of the Institute of History B. D. Grekov to Kazan, she, as his deputy, had to lead the research team in an increasingly complicated military situation. Under her supervision and with her personal participation, the previous plans were replaced with new relevant tasks, the mobilization of volunteers to the Moscow militia, the elimination of the consequences of the fire that arose in connection with the first bombing on July 20, 1941, the organization of military exercises, the distribution of night shifts, etc. She asked each employee if they wanted to stay in Moscow and work at the institute, or if they preferred to evacuate. Among other employees, I also received assignments from her related to the current moment, for example, to write a brochure on the fate of the Slavic peoples; the work was written and submitted to the publishing house.

Like all employees, Pankratova took our failures at the front hard, but showed, as always, her characteristic energy, now preparing the institute for evacuation, then canceling it due to the change in the front-line situation. October 14, 1941 she traveled to Central Asia with a large group of employees. Ten days later, the next group headed by F. V. Potemkin, which included me, also left Moscow. (Some employees, by decision of the general meeting of the Institute, left or left the city on foot on the night of October 16.)

page 108

We met Pankratova a month later, after a long and difficult journey, in Alma-Ata, the capital of the Kazakh SSR. Our comrades who had left earlier were sent here from Tashkent, followed by our group. The city was crowded with evacuees, there were not enough rooms, and they wanted to send us to Jambul. But Pankratova convinced the republican authorities that we could be useful to the Kazakh branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences in the current military conditions with our knowledge and work. F. V. Potemkin's group (consisting of 20 people), in which I was a member, was placed in one of the rooms of the academic building. We were immediately assigned to prepare a methodological guide for teachers of Kazakhstan on the topic "Teaching history in the conditions of the Great Patriotic War". In a difficult situation of crowding and cluttering the room with things, we completed this work in due time. Pankratova acted not only as the editor of this publication, but also as the author of several chapters. The main focus of the book was on the heroic past of the Russian and Kazakh peoples, on their struggle for independence.

We were included in the list of lecturers of the city party committee, and after 2-3 days we already spoke in military and civilian classrooms with lectures on military-historical and historical-cultural topics. When our methodological work was edited and submitted to the publishing house, Pankratova entered the governing bodies of Kazakhstan with a proposal-to write a scientific manual on the history of the Kazakh SSR by the joint efforts of visitors and local historians (this task was already set in the republic, but could not be carried out due to a lack of trained personnel). Pankratova's proposal was accepted. Among the authors, in addition to Moscow scientists, were young Kazakh historians, as well as researchers evacuated from Kharkov. Pankratova played the main organizing role in drawing up the publication plan, in distributing chapters among authors, and in formulating the main principles.

Our task was made easier by the fact that the authors included a recognized expert on the history of Kazakhstan, M. P. Vyatkin, and among the scientists who actively contributed to the resolution of controversial issues was a prominent jurist, S. V. Yushkov. Among the local specialists, the writer M. Auezov and the historian A. Margulan stood out for their knowledge and talent. A special research hall was set up in the local library, where evacuated scientists who came to Alma-Ata could work. The authors were provided with the opportunity to make extensive use of literature and archival materials. When the preliminary organizational work was completed, the collection of material began and from time to time meetings were held to discuss difficult and controversial issues.

Since a group of employees of the Institute of History remained in Moscow, Pankratova was recalled from Alma-Ata to the capital. She handed over the leadership of the group to A. P. Kuchkin. Work on the book continued for a year. More than once there were disagreements between the members of the author's team. Disputes revolved mainly around the question of assessing the degree of progressiveness of national movements. Pankratova once again visited Alma-Ata and together with the leading party worker of the republic M. Abdykalykov finally edited the book. The republican authorities highly appreciated Pankratova's work and awarded her the title of Honored Scientist of the Kazakh SSR.

When we were returning from Alma-Ata to Moscow in the summer of 1943, we had just published copies of the History of the Kazakh SSR from Ancient Times to the Present Day. This was the first attempt of Soviet scientists to give a complete and scientifically based history of a separate republic that is part of the Soviet Union. In Moscow, the book was approved by some for its completeness and harmony, while others found it insufficiently consistent with the class approach to the national past of Kazakhstan. The team of authors headed by Pakkratova took into account many critical comments and partially revised the text in the second edition.

After returning to Moscow, Pankratova continued to be Deputy director of the Institute of History for some time and was in charge of the history of the Soviet period sector. She paid special attention to the training of graduate students.

The victorious end of the war presented historians with new scientific and political challenges. Looking back on the recent past and exposing it in a Marxist way-

page 109

According to Lenin's analysis, it was necessary to think through and explain the reasons for our temporary failures and our final victory, to determine the place of the Second World War in the course of the historical process. The grandiose changes that resulted from the formation of the socialist State system and the collapse of colonialism also required careful research and analysis. The Soviet Union, which played an increasingly important role in international relations, became the most important object of historical study. The struggle for peace in conditions of coexistence of states with different social systems led to a broad development of economic and cultural communication between the Soviet Union and other countries. There was an increased interest in the prerequisites and consequences of the October Revolution, the decades of heroic struggle and labor of the Soviet people, and the history of building socialism. At the same time, the military preparations of the reactionary forces abroad required concentrated attention to foreign policy, and the further strengthening of the union of all the peoples of our multinational State.

In such a situation, Pankratova opened up an even wider field for scientific and political activity. She actively participated in numerous discussions, went on research trips to different countries, was a member of various organizations, published articles in socio - political and historical journals.

The increased interest in historical science required the formation of new and expansion of old scientific press organs: the main role here belonged to the journal Voprosy Istorii, in which Pankratova was first a member of the editorial board, and then (since 1953) editor-in-chief. Her revolutionary worldview and accumulated life experience helped her always take a principled position in controversial issues, give a deep justification for her proposals, and eliminate the exaggerations and mistakes of her comrades in time.

An equally important role was played by Pankratova's trips to foreign countries. An example of her intense activity of this kind was her participation in the X International Congress of Historical Sciences, which was held in Rome in September 1955. I watched Pankratova closely at this time. As head of the delegation, a few months before the congress, she launched extensive work on preparing for the upcoming speeches: she called meetings of delegates, discussed topics put forward by the congress program, and resolved organizational issues related to the trip. In Rome, delegates met daily to exchange views on the progress of the congress. Pankratova herself did not stay idle for a minute: she maintained active contacts with the leaders of the congress, entered into communication with scientists from different countries, fought against hostile attacks by emigrants, agreed on the convocation of the future congress, etc. At the same time, she constantly took care of the delegates ' everyday life, organized excursions around Rome, and after the congress - around the city of Rome. Southern Italy. She tried to show the achievements of Soviet historical science with all her activities at the congress and repeatedly spoke at meetings on some controversial issues.

Despite the huge amount of work that she was currently doing, Pankratova tried to use every free hour to study the history of the Russian proletariat. She continued to collect new materials, for several years published a series of volumes of documents on the history of the working-class movement with her detailed prefaces, and almost finished the first volume of the monograph devoted to the birth of the working class of Russia in the serf era (after her death it was published under the editorship of N. I. Pavlenko). She thought incessantly of the research she had begun, and with a heavy feeling realized that she did not have enough time for concentrated scientific work. How earnestly and fervently she spoke about the importance of this topic not only for Soviet citizens, but also for the awakening peoples at the economic discussion in the autumn of 1951! Like other historians of the USSR, she strongly opposed the remnants of Eurocentrism that had taken place in the draft textbook of political economy, called for a detailed study of the birth and development of the working class in former colonial countries, and justified the value of our rich revolutionary experience not only for developing countries, but also for Western Europe. The Russian proletariat, the hegemon of the three revolutions, has opened up a new, socialist system for mankind. -

page 110

It has become a model of conscious, active struggle for all the peoples of our planet. That is why the Russian proletariat, led by a militant and tightly united Communist Party, should become the most important object of Marxist-Leninist study. This idea, which Pankratova served all her life, she remained true to the end of her days.

* * *

10 years after N. M. Druzhinin first met Pankratova, I also met Anna Mikhailovna (who at that time still had her maiden name - Chistyakova). My meetings with Pankratova are among my most cherished memories. He was a man of amazing integrity and harmony. All her aspirations, thoughts and actions were subordinated to one goal - the implementation of the policy of the Communist Party, the struggle for a bright future for humanity. Everything personal took a back seat to the grandeur of the task. However, the temperament of a revolutionary, a fighter, did not make her harsh. On the contrary, she was remarkably gentle, sensitive and simple, able to get into the situation of each person, quickly grasp the essence of their difficulties and provide them with effective help.

In 1944, I worked in the People's Commissariat of State Security, where I was seconded from the Volkhov Front, where I was an interpreter. As the war drew to a successful end, the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences opened admission to graduate school, and I submitted my documents, as well as my printed and handwritten works, intending to deal with relations between our country and Turkey. Soon I was informed that Pankratova, who was then in charge of the Soviet-era sector, had looked through my papers and was advised to talk to her. She was in the next room, and just as I was - in my military greatcoat, with the captured parabellum hanging in a holster on my belt-I suddenly found myself face to face with an unusually lively, friendly woman in a warm sheepskin coat who was walking quickly towards me. It was Anna Mikhaylovna. As soon as she heard the rest of my question, she surprised me with her firm and decisive answer: "You are suitable for us, we accept you." These words expressed many things: benevolence, the desire to do good to a person, to please with good news, Anna Mikhailovna's habit of considering herself as a part of the team - hence these well-remembered words "we", "us".

"But I haven't passed my exams yet," I said.

- Well, of course, you must pass the exams, but otherwise you can consider the question solved.

At the same time, several other participants of the war became graduate students, including L. V. Maksakova, M. N. Chernomorsky and others. Pankratova was extremely attentive to us. Regularly, once a week, she gathered all the graduate students of the sector in her apartment. We made small reports and shared our work experience. Although some of us had other scientific supervisors (I had M. V. Nechkin), Pankratova considered herself responsible for the work of each of us. Sometimes she was very tired and excused herself to listen to us, lying on the sofa with her eyes closed. Later, due to the fact that I decided to write a dissertation on the topic "Kuchuk - Kainardzhi Peace of 1771", I was transferred to another sector. After that, I met Anna Mikhailovna mainly at party meetings. I remember her passionate, deeply principled statements on political issues, telling me about numerous tasks of a scientific and organizational nature, which left her almost no time for research work.

After my marriage, I got to know Anna Mikhailovna from another side - as a kind and caring friend of our family. For a number of years, she lived in the same house that we have lived in since 1950. Pankratova had an amazing sense of what difficulties we might have in connection with settling in this new house for scientists (61/1 Leninsky Ave.), which at that time stood among vegetable gardens, barracks and wastelands. We met Pankratova's family, including her mother, a simple and modest woman. Anna Mikhailovna very much

page 111

I took care of my family. At her suggestion, a council of assistance was formed under the housing administration, which took care of the needs of the residents of our house. She agreed to be a member of the board, which, on her recommendation, also included me as a wall newspaper editor. The editorials for our modest but business newspaper, which was always published on time, were written by A. M. Pankratova and F. V. Konstantinov, and my husband and V. A. Vinogradov (now a corresponding member) participated in its design. of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences). Gradually, the life of the scientists who lived in our house improved. Now around the house stretch blocks of well-maintained buildings, covered by an extensive transport network and surrounded by greenery.

In October 1953, A. M. Pankratova was simultaneously elected to full membership of the USSR Academy of Sciences along with P. N. Pospelov, M. N. Tikhomirov and N. M. Druzhinin. After that, she began to persuade Nikolai Mikhailovich to agree to take on the duties of academician-secretary of the Department of History, that is, to become the successor of Academician B. D. Grekov, who died in September 1953. With Druzhinin, negotiations were conducted on this issue in the Central Committee of the Party and the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences. One day Anna Mikhailovna called and asked me to "persuade" my husband to take this post. A long conversation took place. I explained to Anna Mikhailovna that Nikolai Mikhailovich's state of health required not an expansion, but a reduction in his functions, and that his ability to work and even his life depended on it. Pankratova was very impressed by these words. "The health of Nikolai Mikhailovich is dearer to us than anything else," she said, and promised to support his refusal. Afterwards, as a true friend, she constantly inquired about his state of health, ready to help if necessary.

By the summer of 1955, Druzhinin's health had improved significantly, and after some hesitation, he agreed to go to Rome to participate in the X International Congress of Historical Sciences. I was to go there with him. Thus, I was again able to communicate on a scientific basis with Pankratova, who was the head of the Soviet delegation in Rome. My duties included recording speeches delivered in foreign languages, visiting the Slavic Commission, and submitting relevant information at the end of the day. Since historians from the GDR and Germany were included in the congress materials in the general list indicated by the word "Allemagne" (Germany), Pankratova instructed me to get acquainted with the GDR scientists who came to the congress and invite them to the Soviet embassy for an evening. It turned out that five or six historians who came from the GDR, including Professor (now academician) E. Engelberg and Professor G. Mulpfordt, themselves sought meetings with Soviet colleagues. Presented by Pankratova, they discussed with her the next tasks of scientific cooperation between historians of the USSR and the GDR, and then repeatedly came to Moscow. Pankratova's other assignment was to go with S. D. Skazkin and P. M. Chikarev, an employee of the foreign department, went to the hotel of a Swedish scientist, Vice-president of the International Committee of Historical Sciences Nils Anlund (who was to become the organizer of the next International Congress of Historians) and on her behalf invited him and his wife to visit Moscow. Pankratova reasoned that the three of us would ensure a successful conversation, since Skazkin speaks French, Chikarev speaks English, and I speak German. However, Professor Anlund, as it turned out, was fluent in all three languages and, after receiving us hospitably, spoke to each of us. The invitation to Moscow was accepted, and we had the opportunity to see N. Anlund and talk with him and his wife again on September 29, 1956, during a reception at the National Committee of Historians of the Soviet Union. However, Anlund was not destined to participate in the XI International Congress of Historical Sciences: he died in January 1957, as I was informed by his wife Lisa Anlund.

These episodes showed Pankratova's ability to activate all the people around her, to use their abilities and knowledge both to unite our own team and to bring together historians from different countries.

During the X International Congress of Historical Sciences, as well as after its completion, various excursions were organized for Soviet delegates. At the same time, we felt very strongly that our situation was different from that of the majority of delegates from capitalist countries who came to the congress at their own expense.

page 112

After the final act, they began to leave immediately, referring to the high cost of continuing their stay in Italy. Pankratova, who was well aware of the importance of introducing Soviet people to the spiritual values that humanity had accumulated, actively participated in organizing excursions. Together with the rest of them, she was very interested in exploring Rome, Naples, as well as the ancient cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii located at the foot of Mount Vesuvius. At the excavation site, we saw residential areas cleared of lava and ash by archaeologists, forums, theaters and other public buildings decorated with sculptures, frescoes, mosaics and filled with household items. I still have a picture of Pankratova that I took on Pompeii Street.

From Naples we went to Venice. Pankratova did not mind that she would have to travel at night, in a car with seats. For the sake of staying in this famous city, at least for a short time, she, just like my husband and I, was ready to go in any conditions. We were not mistaken: the most vivid and unforgettable impressions were waiting for us here. The combination of the bright facades of palaces sparkling in the sun with the smoothness of canals, overhung by picturesque bridges, and all this against the background of a wonderful blue sky, created an upbeat mood. We were sorry that Anna Mikhailovna had to leave Venice earlier than the others, having spent only 3 or 4 hours in it. But she was on her way to Milan to meet the Italian Communists.

After returning to Moscow, all the delegates, and especially Pankratova, continued to work hard, making oral and written reports, scientific reports and reports about the congress, meetings and discussions at it, impressions of ancient antiquities and other attractions in Italy, as well as the situation abroad. Our trip was one of the first trips of Soviet historians abroad after a long break, so it attracted everyone's attention. Many speakers illustrated their presentations with reproductions and photographs. In addition to the general meeting of the Institute of History, which was attended by all delegates, we spoke in our own sectors, as well as in museums, libraries and other institutions. Pankratova, not limited to four reporting reports, made a speech at the Historical Library, with the staff of which she was connected by a long-standing friendship.

Since then, Pankratova's work in the field of international relations of Soviet historians has become increasingly widespread. As the chairman of the National Committee of Historians of the Soviet Union, she promotes the invitation of foreign scientists to the USSR and the sending of our scientists abroad. Well aware of the importance of international meetings for the successful struggle to expand the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideology and to spread truthful information about the Soviet Union, she invests a lot of energy and personal resources in this work.

I remember the reception that Anna Mikhailovna gave at her home for Finnish scientists on April 9, 1956. Its guests were historians L. Puntila, F. Luukko, V. Niitemaa, V. Nurmio, as well as a number of Soviet historians. In a relaxed atmosphere, a frank conversation unfolded, during which the Finns, at first somewhat aloof and wary, began to feel more and more trust and favor towards us, the Soviet people. Pankratova touched on a topic that they were particularly concerned about: the coverage of national liberation movements in our historiography. Referring to the Finnish liberation movement against tsarism, she noted that Soviet historians rate it positively. N. M. Druzhinin took part in the conversation. He cited facts showing that the leading people of Russia welcomed the liberation struggle of the Finnish people. Answering the question of one of the Finnish guests, whether all that they heard is reflected in Soviet literature, Pankratova took from the bookshelf the second volume of the textbook on the history of the USSR for universities (ed. Academician M. V. Nechkina) and pointed out the relevant paragraphs (which were immediately translated into Finnish). This friendly meeting was followed by presentations by Finnish historians at the Institute of History (April 12) and a reception at the Finnish Embassy, where the Finns welcomed us as their good friends.

page 113

In connection with the XX Congress of the CPSU, Soviet historians faced new challenges. Taking a leading position in science, Pankratova had to determine her attitude to the acute issues raised. It is known that along with a healthy stream aimed at correcting past mistakes, some historians tried to cross out all the achievements of Soviet science in the 1930s - 1940s. In the editorial office of the magazine "Voprosy Istorii", which was then headed by Pankratova, there were stormy meetings involving a wide range of activists. Pankratova tried to understand everything, fought against opportunism and unscrupulousness. This required a lot of mental and physical strength from her. She complained of insomnia, sometimes even losing her sight from overwork. I have preserved her letter of April 26, 1956, in which she asks me, on behalf of the editorial board of the journal Voprosy Istorii, to comment on Karl Marx's well-known pamphlet "Exposures of the Diplomatic History of the 18th century", and then to take part in a meeting of specialists on this issue. I sent Pankratova a detailed analysis of Marx's work and participated in its discussion, which took place at a meeting of the Academic Council of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU on October 5, 1956.7

The authority of A. M. Pankratova as a major scientist, member of the Central Committee of the CPSU and deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR remained unshakable until the end of her days. This was reflected during her 60th birthday celebration (two months before her death). I will never forget the warmth of the speeches addressed to Anna Mikhaylovna and her remarkable response, which reflected boundless modesty, sincerity, and revolutionary passion. The hall of the Institute of History, located at that time on Volkhonka, was crowded. The audience gave Pankratova a standing ovation.

Anna Mikhailovna held responsible positions, had high titles and awards, although she never sought them. I didn't search because I didn't think about myself. Her whole life has been dedicated to the ideals that captured her in her youth. For the sake of her beliefs and principles, she was always ready to sacrifice herself.

7 The results of the meeting are reflected in "Essays on the History of Historical Science in the USSR", vol. II, Moscow, 1960 (see ch. IV, § 1 "K. Marx and F. Engels on the Historical development of Russia"),

page 114


© elibrary.com.ua

Permanent link to this publication:

https://elibrary.com.ua/m/articles/view/HISTORIAN-WRESTLER-DEDICATED-TO-THE-80TH-ANNIVERSARY-OF-THE-BIRTH-OF-ACADEMICIAN-A-M-PANKRATOVA

Similar publications: LUkraine LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Denys ReznikovContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://elibrary.com.ua/Reznikov

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

N. M. DRUZHININ, E. I. DRUZHININA, HISTORIAN-WRESTLER (DEDICATED TO THE 80TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH OF ACADEMICIAN A.M. PANKRATOVA) // Kiev: Library of Ukraine (ELIBRARY.COM.UA). Updated: 18.01.2025. URL: https://elibrary.com.ua/m/articles/view/HISTORIAN-WRESTLER-DEDICATED-TO-THE-80TH-ANNIVERSARY-OF-THE-BIRTH-OF-ACADEMICIAN-A-M-PANKRATOVA (date of access: 10.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - N. M. DRUZHININ, E. I. DRUZHININA:

N. M. DRUZHININ, E. I. DRUZHININA → other publications, search: Libmonster UkraineLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
ТРУДНЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ. СВЕТЛАНА АЛЕКСИЕВИЧ: "МЫ - ЛЮДИ ЛАГЕРНОГО СОЗНАНИЯ"
5 days ago · From Україна Онлайн
FORMS OF CLASS STRUGGLE OF THE PEASANT-COSSACK MASSES OF UKRAINE IN THE XVIII CENTURY
Catalog: История 
9 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
G. I. MARAKHOV. SOCIO-POLITICAL STRUGGLE IN UKRAINE IN THE 50S-60S OF THE XIX CENTURY
12 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONS OF THE UKRAINIAN SSR
12 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
K. A. KHMELEVSKY, S. K. KHMELEVSKY. STORM OVER THE QUIET DON. HISTORICAL ESSAY ON THE CIVIL WAR ON THE DON
12 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
"УКРАЇНСЬКИЙ ІСТОРИЧНИЙ ЖУРНАЛ" - ДЕСЯТЬ РОКІВ У МЕРЕЖІ
Catalog: История 
12 days ago · From Україна Онлайн
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE HISTORY OF THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION
Catalog: История 
16 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
UKRAINIAN CHRONICLES
17 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
RABOCHY VOPROS ' ON THE PAGES OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PRESS OF 1905-1907
17 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
BUDGET STUDIES OF WORKERS IN PRE-REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIA
19 days ago · From Denys Reznikov

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

ELIBRARY.COM.UA - Digital Library of Ukraine

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

HISTORIAN-WRESTLER (DEDICATED TO THE 80TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH OF ACADEMICIAN A.M. PANKRATOVA)
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: UA LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Ukraine ® All rights reserved.
2009-2025, ELIBRARY.COM.UA is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Ukraine


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android