process? Professor Kappeler’s closing remarks were that the answers to these and many other questions would help define Ukraine’s place on the map of Europe.
On 2 July, Professor Mark von Hagen opened the panel, «Revising the Revolution», with his presentation «Pavlo Khrystiuk’s History and the Politics of Ukrainian Anti-Colonialism», in which he spoke on Khrystiuk’s fate, his return to the Soviet Ukraine and his concept of history of the Ukrainian revolution. In his presentation, «The Ukrainian Revolution in Reflections of Interwar Émigré Historiography», Professor Vladyslav Verstiuk focused mainly on the vision of the Ukrainian revolution by Mykhailo Hruhevsky, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, and Viacheslav Lypynsky, whose concepts and thoughts were used not only in academic polemics but also in political struggle between various groups in emigration and were later revived in independent Ukraine. This idea of historical work as an instrument in political struggle was elaborated by Oleh Pavlyshyn in his presentation, «The “United Ukraine” Idea in the Discourse of Émigré Historiography of the Ukrainian Revolution», who pointed out the engagement of various authors in historical events.
Professor Zenon Kohut opened 'the second panel, «Historians of the State School», with his presentation «Habent sua fata libelli: The Torturous Destiny of Two Monographs on Hetman Petro Doroshenko», in which he discussed the fate of Dmytro Doroshenko’s manuscript on his prominent ancestor and the circumstances in which it was discovered and published in 1985. The presenter also made a comparative analysis with a monograph on Petro Doroshenko by the Polish scholar Jan Perdenia, which had been similarly published many years after the author’s death. In his presentation, «Hrushevsky Confronts Lypynsky: The Historian’s Final Assessment of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Khmelnytsky Era» Professor Frank Sysyn spoke on the controversial attitudes of these two prominent Ukrainian historians regarding the Khmelnytsky era, emphasizing the impact of Lypynsky’s book Ukraїna na perelomi [Ukraine at Crossroads] on Ukrainian historical thought and political discourse. The presenter noted that Lypynsky is usually considered as a historian of the statist school while his treatment of nation and people was underestimated, as well as his attempt to undermine the traditional Polish historical scheme.
Vadym Adadurov opened the third panel, «People and Institutions of the Central- and West-European Emigration», with his presentation «The Construction of a Mythological Image of Ukraine in France in the 18‒19th Centuries by Ilko Borshchak, or the Limits of Freedom and Researcher’s Responsibility in Interpretation of Historical Sources». After a thorough discussion of archival sources, the researcher discovered various falsifications employed by Borshchak, which, unfortunately, were accepted by modern Ukrainian historiography. In his presentation, «The Life and Work of Stepan Rudnytsky in Vienna and Prague in 1921‒1926», Professor Guido Hausmann spoke about the émigré activities of this well-known geographer in the context of European scholarship. He concluded that the fact that the German and Austrian academic milieu ignored Rudnytsky might have caused his return to Soviet Ukraine. Tetiana Boriak’s presentation, «The Ukrainian Historical Cabinet and the Phenomenon of the Prague Archive», dealt with works by Arkadii Zhyvotko and the Ukrainian Historical Cabinet, which he directed. In his presentation, «The Ukrainian Research Institute in Berlin and History as a Science», Professor Nicolas Szafowal analyzed the activities of this émigré institution focusing on its historical works. He
