
The actual majority of the Soviet writers officially listed (Miliband, 1975) as historians would hardly figure under that appellation in any non-Marxist country. In a few cases they would be excluded on technical grounds, such as the extension of the term in Russia to embrace for example prehistory, anthropology and ethnology (A. P. Okladnikov and others) or museum-curatorship (e.g. V. T. Dashkevich). Moreover some of those in Miliband’s directory had very little to say on Japan in particular. Much the greater and more sweeping reason is however that by far the majority appear by non-Soviet lights to deal very largely in day-to-day commentary on current happenings and political prognostications — the functions in the West of the journalist, publicist or agitator rather than that of the historian. The procedure adopted here is to go through the Soviet listing — first in this section the historians, the most numerous contingent — taking the names simply in alphabetical order and giving brief characterisations of the life and work of each. This will give a useful overview of the field, identifying the kinds of persons involved and the general nature of their interests and activities.
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
