tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131013065413928242.post5581932781943869131..comments2021-02-18T23:27:24.309+00:00Comments on Otiose Chess Notes: Averbakh 16: Publishing pitfalls.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02831553427707554017noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131013065413928242.post-87884205529619159752012-10-02T13:38:06.891+01:002012-10-02T13:38:06.891+01:00I have always been fascinated by this issue. There...I have always been fascinated by this issue. There is background in a rare book that I picked up long ago: Mikhail Koryakov <i>Zhivaya Istoriya</i> 1917-1975, 510pp, Munich, Echo Press, 1977.<br /> <br />The author was a defector who spent years researching the history of the USSR in the libraries of Western Europe. He diligently looked through the back numbers of <i>Pravda</i> and <i>Izvestiya</i> in order to study the cross currents of past times. Many of the official positions reflected there were now, of course, to be considered as subversive by the Party.<br /> <br />From this source I learn that Koryakov regards the Marr issue as the key one of 1950. He points out that the issue was dealt with not just in one article, but a by series of letters by Stalin issued under the polite fiction that he was replying to queries by ‘a group of comrades’.<br /> <br />Koryakov regards the topic as an indirect approach by the Great Leader to strengthening the position of Russian as a sort of State Language not just of the USSR but also of the newly-formed Soviet Empire of Eastern Europe. It was also meant to be a strengthening of the position of the ‘new class’ which ran this empire. An interesting thesis.Bernard Caffertynoreply@blogger.com