DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BOOK BY KRAUSZ TAMAS "THE FATE OF IDEAS DURING THE USSR HISTORY AND AFTER..."

N.E. Vashkau in the essay "On the way to the dialogue of national historiographies" notes the importance of historical memory, interaction within the framework of the intercultural dialogue of historiographies. A.A. German, in solidarity with some of T. Kraus'views on the historical memory of the Second World War, starts a polemic with him on a number of problems related to the theory, history and practice of the creation, development and fall of Soviet state socialism. T.B. Ivanova (section "Historical memory forecasting the future") focuses on self-government as an instrument of social emancipation as a direction to develop the social structure, which T. Kraus pays special attention to in theory and political activity. The author pays attention to the wide information and evidence base offered by T. Kraus to prove the value of this idea every time for the next social reconstruction. E.F. Krinko in the section "Soviet history in a Marxist reading: Tamas Kraus on revolution, socialism, war and other issues" notes that the publication of the book provides us with a deep understanding about the Hungarian historian views basing on the denial of capitalism with its ideals of individualism and private property and commitment to the socialist idea. He emphasizes that T. Kraus rejects both the application of the theory of totalitarianism to Soviet history due to its limited research potential, and the apologetics of Soviet man and state socialism. S.G. Sidorov focused on the second section of T. Kraus' book "War and Genocide. Historical facts and the politics of memory", in which the author gives answers to important questions: who is responsible for the war; whether it is possible to compare the Nazi Germany with the USSR as well as GULAG and Auschwitz; who is guilty of civilians genocide and others. Sidorov has come to the conclusion that the application of "his methodological conviction - the third way" actually led the author to estimates that are close to many ones given by modern Russian historians, and allowed him to reasonably and fairly criticize the views on World War II, the Soviet period of Russian history prevailing today in Hungary and in the West.