SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION OF LUHANSK REGION

Abstract

The article presents a comprehensive historiographical analysis of Soviet studies on the post-war reconstruction of Luhansk region in the 1940s–1950s. It is emphasized that the region was viewed by the Soviet authorities as part of the industrial area of Donbas – one of the USSR’s main industrial “showcases” – which determined its special place in propaganda constructs and official historiography. It is demonstrated that the restoration of industry, the agricultural sector, and social infrastructure was interpreted by Soviet historians through the prism of the “leading role of the CPSU,” the “labor heroism of the people,” and the “successful implementation of Stalin’s industrial policy”. At the same time, problematic aspects of economic development, such as the famine of 1946–1947, shortages of resources, and the use of prisoner-of-war labor, were either silenced or mentioned only in veiled terms. The author stresses that Soviet historiography was dominated by generalizing works based on party documents, statistical data, and publications in the central press, which limited the potential for objective scholarly analysis. Luhansk region was thus mostly treated not as an independent territorial unit, but as part of Donbas, which led to the neglect of its local economic specificities during the studied period. The contribution of Soviet economic historians of the 1950s–1970s, the authors of collective generalizing publications (The History of Cities and Villages of the Ukrainian SSR, Voroshilovgrad Region), as well as local researchers, is highlighted. It is concluded that Soviet historiography of the post-war reconstruction of Luhansk region performed not only a scholarly but also a distinctly propagandistic function, creating enduring myths about the “victories of socialism”, which are still actively exploited by hostile Russian propaganda in its information war against Ukraine. The study of this issue is therefore an important task for contemporary Ukrainian scholarship, as it fosters a critical reassessment of the Soviet legacy and helps to counteract information manipulation in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war.