1. about the subject

In the name of ideology. Given the importance of history at all times, there were struggles against placing it under the control of the state and the ruling class. As a result, history was governed by the ideology which has always been a part of it. In order to cope with this situation, the history struggled towards getting rid of the "shackles".

The notion of ideology appeared in French literature during the Enlightenment at the end of the eighteenth century. It is believed that its second emergence was motivated by Napoleon who named his enemies and critics from French intelligentsia as ideologists with hatred.

The usual and often forgotten part of the statements by Marx and Engels says "The only science we know is the science of history". “We have to deal with the history of human beings, because the whole ideology consists either of misconception of the history, or complete isolation from it. Ideology is a part of the history”

Despite this solemn promise of Marx and Engels, their views laid the groundwork for a new ideology - Marxism. This ideology, further elaborated by Lenin, is also "misconception of history, or the complete isolation from it. " Lenin wrote: “Either bourgeois ideology or socialist ideology. They do not have anything in common. Therefore, reducing the importance of socialist ideology, stepping aside from it, shall at the same time mean provoking the bourgeois ideology”

The ideological use of history in the Soviet era, on the one hand, played a role of propaganda and agitation, and on the other hand, distorted the theory about the development of mankind in order to "justify" the socialism.

In order to achieve its goal, the achievements of history up to the October Revolution of 1917 were denied, special attention was paid to the development of research trends in compliance with the requirements of the Soviet government, while strong focus was placed on the history. The "Short Course" on the history of the CP (Communist Party) and its "activities” was the main trend in the study.

Thus, the history became under the control of Stalin's dictatorship. The works on history were aimed at proving the instructions stipulated in the writings by the classics of Marxism-Leninism, Party and public documents. After Stalin's death, the situation changed. The well-known academician N.M.Drujin reminds that, Criticism of the negative aspects of the cult of personality has had a very positive effect on the work of historians: the subject of scientific research has expanded, new important resources have been laid off, and suitable situation for independent creative activity has been made available. The decisions made at the twentieth and twenty second party congresses launched new conditions for the early removal of the shortcomings from the past, such as dogmatism, cramming, wrong approach to the research topic, and the public figures. The one-sided results obtained in the past have been critically reviewed and corrected.”

Azerbaijan's history has become a mean of propaganda and agitation. Tens of fundamental problems, such as the origin of the Azerbaijani people, the level of development of capitalist relations in the country, and the history of ADR became victims of ideology, were obviously studied improperly in the period before the criticism of the cult of personality.

During the ten-day event devoted to Azerbaijani Literature and Culture in Moscow, Stalin said to the representative of the republic, "Your fathers were from Medes ." Starting with the history of Azerbaijan (short essays) published in 1941, the history of the Medes has been studied together with the history of Azerbaijan. The conclusion on the report of the XVII Congress of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan in May 1951 called for the study of important issues such as the history of Medes and the origin of the Azerbaijani people.
The issue on the level of development of capitalist relations in Azerbaijan was also the result of a preconceived notion.
In the theses of the X Congress of the RK (b) P (1921) "On the next tasks of the Party in the national context", I. Stalin stated that if we deduct the small part of Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, and Armenia which underwent industrial capitalism this or that way from 65 million non-Russian population, the remaining part will be 30 million that will mainly consist of the Turkish population (Turkustan, a large part of Azerbaijan, Dagestan, the daghlis, the Tatars, the Bashkirs, etc.), who failed to pass the capitalist development.

This provision also led to the "study" of the relevant problem in the history of Azerbaijan, rather than the fact that it is relevant to. It was only after Stalin's death when the situation changed. Upon the decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan "On the celebration of the 150th anniversary of Azerbaijan's adoption to Russia", the most remarkable event in the history of Azerbaijan was led to a completely false propaganda.

The 1970s opened an important period in the ideological use of history. Based on the decisions of the Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the ideology-based activities launched with the plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan (October 29-30, 1971) on the tasks of the parties of the republic towards further intensifying the ideological work. It was stated in the plenum that “some authors have gone beyond the principle of party-membership in their discussions about the historical past, idealized some representatives of the exploiter classes to a certain extent, failed to explain the nature of bourgeois philanthropy.

The scientists engaged in public sciences had to support the party position while evaluating the historical past and modern period, make a strong protest against ideological deviations, even minor effects of bourgeois ideology, lead the ideological struggle against deceitful bourgeois scholars, anticommunism. And they did it!. “The history of Azerbaijan” (Baku, “Elm” Publishing house) might be evaluated as the output of the activities in this field.
The lack of proportionality of all periods of the history of Azerbaijan, presentation of the 1970s with descriptiveness and slogans instead of making in-depth analysis of the events (actually, Brezhnev's name is mentioned up to 40 times only in 34 pages of the book).