
“Myths Making”: Western View of Soviet/Russian Historical Memory (Book Review: Davis, V. Myth Making in the Soviet Union and Modern Russia: Remembering World War Two in Brezhnev’s Hero City [Text] / V. Davis. – London : I.B. Taurus, 2018. – 351 p.)
Author(s) -
Алексей Попов,
Oleg Romanko
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
vestnik volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. seriâ 4. istoriâ, regionovedenie, meždunarodnye otnošeniâ
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.308
H-Index - 2
eISSN - 2312-8704
pISSN - 1998-9938
DOI - 10.15688/jvolsu4.2020.1.10
Subject(s) - hero , mythology , politics , collective memory , militarism , biography , history , spanish civil war , politics of memory , world war ii , sociology , classics , law , literature , political science , art history , art
. The publication is a review of the monograph of British researcher V. Davis, dedicated to the Soviet and Post-Soviet memory of the Great Patriotic War in the hero city of Novorossiysk.Methods and materials. Based on a significant set of published materials and oral interviews, the author characterizes discourse, memorials, and practices related to the genesis and subsequent development of the “myth about Malaya Zemlya”. From the methodological point of view, the peer-reviewed monograph is written from the position of the popular direction of memory studies in the West and is characterized by interdisciplinarity, increased attention to the analysis of memorial discourse, visual representations and social practices, while completely ignoring the complex of archival sources on the research topic.Analysis and Results. The main conclusion of the author is that through its association with L.I. Brezhnev’s biography during his reign, the “malozemelniy myth” became an important part of not only local but also national historical memory. Generally, the reviewed book is a valuable contribution to the study of the collective memory of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet and Post-Soviet period, and the debatable nature of its individual provisions can serve as an incentive for the emergence of new studies. The main disadvantage of the book in terms of its scientific significance is the author’s desire to impose on the reader non-obvious political conclusions about the total mythology of the Soviet/Post-Soviet memory of the Great Patriotic War, as well as the permanent militarism of public consciousness in the USSR/Russia.