Shlikhta, Natalia2021-02-222021-02-222020Shlikhta N. The 1917 Break and Its Aftermath: Ukrainian Academia’s Perception and Representation of the Revolutionary Events (2007–2017) / Natalia Shlikhta // Kyiv-Mohyla Humanities Journal. - 2020. - № 7. - P. 197-214.https://doi.org/10.18523/kmhj219673.2020-7.197-214https://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle/123456789/19568The author of this review is not a student of the Ukrainian Revolution of 1917-1921 herself. My interest in Soviet history and Western historiography undoubtedly influenced my approach and the interpretation advanced in this article. This is an outsider’s review, the author of which has not aspired nor pretended to provide exhaustive coverage of the publications from the period. I certainly make no authoritative estimations, nor do I draw authoritative conclusions. Rather, I see my part just as Geoff Eley saw his when he participated in the discussion between Sovietologists of different generations on the pages of the Russian Review in 1986-1987. Having focused his own studies on Nazi history, he was able— as an outsider— to see the methodological limitations of the approaches applied by those who studied Soviet history as well as to provide broader perspectives on the challenges they faced and the research problems they raised.2 Therefore, when examining scholarly and public history publications from the decade between the two jubilee anniversaries of the 1917 revolutionary events, I will focus primarily on methodological and conceptual issues, which allows me to frame academic views on these events within a broader context of the study of the (Ukrainian) 20th century.enUkrainian RevolutionSoviet historyNational MemoryarticleArticle