Conference about Ukraine on the Historiographic Map of Interwar Europe

An international conference, “Ukraine on the Historiographic Map of Interwar Europe,” was held [July 1-3, 2012] at the premises of the Ukrainian Free University (UFU) in Munich. It was organized collaboratively by the W.K. Lypynsky East European Research Institute (Philadelphia), Peter Jacyk Centre for Ukrainian Historical Research (Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta), Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Institute of History of Ukraine at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and by the Department of History of Eastern- and Southern-Eastern Europe at the Historical Seminar (Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich).

Founded in Vienna in 1921, the UFU was soon transferred to Prague and in 1945 to Munich. In the Interwar Period, it was not only a higher institution for migr Ukrainian youth, but also one of the leading institutions for researching Ukrainian History in Europe. Not surprisingly, the interwar historiographic legacy of the UFU and its professors was often addressed at the conference.

Six panels were held at the conference. On 1 July, the thematic direction of the conference was defined by Professor Andreas Kappeler in his introductory lecture, “What is Ukraine? What is Europe? What is a Historiographic Map?”, in which he formulated a number of important questions. What territories should be included in Interwar Europe? Who could be considered a Ukrainian historian? Who were immigrants from Ukraine? Where was research in Ukrainian Studies conducted? What were the connections with non-Ukrainian scholars? Prof. Kappeler paid special attention to the content of historical research during the Interwar Period, provoking the following questions: what are considered to be Ukrainian Studies? What historical schools were involved in the emigration? How did the historiographic situation in the new countries of settlement impact their research? Were they under the influence of Soviet Historiography? What specific topics were elaborated by migr historians? How did the political situation in Interwar Europe influence the historiographic process? Prof. Kappeler’s closing remarks were that the answers to these and many other questions would help define Ukraine’s place on the map of Europe.

On 2 July, Mark von Hagen opened the panel, “Revising the Revolution,” with his presentation “Pavlo Khrystiuk: An Attempt at Postcolonial Revision of his History of the Ukrainian Revolution,” in which he spoke on Khrystiuk’s fate, his return to the Soviet Ukraine and his concept of history of the Ukrainian Revolution. In his presentation, “Reflections of Interwar Ukrainian Emigr Historiography on the Failure of the National Revolution,” Prof. Vladyslav Verstiuk focused mainly on the vision of the Ukrainian Revolution by Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, and Viacheslav Lypynsky, whose concepts and thoughts were used not only in the academic polemics, but also in the political struggle between various groups in emigration, and were later revived in independent Ukraine. This idea of historical work as an instrument in political struggle was elaborated by Oleh Pavlyshyn in his presentation, “The ‘United Ukraine’ Idea in the Discourse of Emigr Historiography of the Ukrainian Revolution,” who pointed out the engagement of various authors in historical events.

Prof. Zenon Kohut opened the next panel, “Historians of the State School,” with his presentation “Habent sua fata libelli: Petro Doroshenko’s Biography in Dmytro Doroshenko’s Account,” in which he discussed the fate of Dmytro Doroshenko’s manuscript on his prominent ancestor and the circumstances in which it was discovered and published in 1985. The presenter also made a comparative analysis with a monograph on Petro Doroshenko by the Polish scholar Jan Perdenia, which had been similarly published many years after the author’s death. In his presentation, “Hrushevsky and Lypynsky in Historical Debates”, Prof. Frank Sysyn spoke on the controversial attitudes of these two prominent Ukrainian historians regarding the Khmelnytsky era, emphasizing the impact of Lypynsky’s book Ukraina na perelomi [Ukraine at Crossroads] on Ukrainian historical thought and political discourse. The presenter noted that Lypynsky is usually considered as an historian of the statist school, while his treatment of a nation and people was underestimated, as well as his attempt to undermine the traditional Polish historical scheme.

Vadym Adadurov opened the third panel, “People and Institutions of Central- and West-European Emigration,” with his presentation “The Construction of a Mythological Image of Ukraine in France in the 17-19th Centuries by Ilko Borshchak.” After a thorough discussion of archival sources, the researcher discovered various falsifications employed by Borshchak, which, unfortunately, were absorbed into modern Ukrainian historiography. In his presentation, “The Life and Work of Stepan Rudnytsky in Vienna and Prague in 1921-1926,” Prof. Guido Hausmann spoke about the migr activities of this well-known geographer in the context of European scholarship. He concluded that the fact that the German and Austrian academic milieu ignored Rudnytsky, might have caused his return to Soviet Ukraine. Tetiana Boriak’s presentation, “The Ukrainian Historical Cabinet and the Phenomenon of the Prague Archive,” dealt with works by Arkadii Zhyvotko and the Ukrainian Historical Cabinet, which he directed. In his presentation, “The Ukrainian Research Institute in Berlin and History as a Science,” Prof. Nicolas Szafowal analyzed the activities of this migr institution focusing on its historical works. He noted that in the Interwar Period, academic institutions were frequently favourable to political organizations and movements: the Institute was under the influence of the conservative monarchist ideology.

On 3 July, Prof. Leonid Zashkilniak opened the next panel, “In the Homeland and in Emigration: Ukrainian Historiography in Interwar Poland.” In his presentation, “Ways of Legitimization of the National History,” he argued that despite ongoing tensions between Ukrainian politicians, society and the Polish authorities, Ukrainian historians managed to use their scholarship to contribute to Ukrainian historical thought. In his presentation, “Writing Ukrainian History in Emigration. The Diversity of Personal Strategies in Interwar Poland,” Andrii Portnov spoke about the personal strategies of migr historians, the possibilities of their “academic assimilation,” and their career opportunity, which often depended on their political preferences, non-Ukrainian connections, and topics of their publications. Prof. Yaroslav Hrytsak’s presentation, “The Bujak School and its Ukrainian Dimension,” examined the attitude of Franciszek Bujak to Ukrainians and the Ukrainian question, and revealed the multinational nature of the School in which the whole political spectrum of Interwar Poland was represented. Prof. Michael Moser spoke on “We and Others: History of Ukrainian Literary Language by Ivan Ohiienko from the Perspective of Discourse Analysis,” focusing on a thorough language analysis of this popular work through the prism of creating the images of “us and them.”

At the panel “The Dialogue Across the Borders,” Oksana Yurkova in her presentation, “Honouring the Patriarch: A Response to Hrushevsky’s Death outside Soviet Ukraine,” pointed out the different levels of honouring the prominent historian, including obituaries, newspapers, and social events. Prof. Serhii Plokhii’s presentation, “East and West Together: Ukrainian Historians and the Outbreak of the Second World War,” was devoted to the cooperation among scholars, primarily from Galicia and Kyiv, in 1939-1941, which became possible after “the golden September” of 1939.

The conference concluded with the round table “Balancing the Ukrainian Historiography between the Wars.” The participants agreed that many questions have not been addressed despite the productive discussion at the conference. They noted that gaps remain on both empirical and theoretical levels, which encourages them to continue their studies. The proceedings of the conference will be published soon.

PHOTOS

1- Prof. Zenon Kohut

2 - L. to R.: Mark von Hagen, Vladyslav Verstiuk, and Oleh Pavlyshyn at one of the panels