SUMMARY
The article studies the issue of collaboration of the famous historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky with the Ukrainian Party of Socialists-Revolutionaries from the viewpoint of soviet historiography. It is discovered that the collaboration of M. Hrushevsky with the UPSR has never been denied by soviet authors. However, they emphasised more on the assessment of the historian’s party activity, his so-called “anti-soviet” and “counterrevolutionary” views, while they were doing this from the viewpoint of the prevailing communist ideology. Meanwhile, historical research methods gave way to political expediency. It is found out that the works of soviet historians were mainly of a journalistic and propagandistic manner, but not at all scientific. Furthermore, mainly in the 20’s-30’s, they wereoften written not by professional historians but by politicians. Along with this, in 20’s, when M. Hrushevsky still had certain discretion provided by the bolshevik power, the researchers tended to give a relatively neutral response to his party background. However, the works of 30’s–50’s are characterised by a high level of ideology and destructive criticism both of the political and scientific activities of the former head of the Central Council of Ukraine. Instead, the socio-political changes offered by Nikita Khrushchev somewhat reduced the ideological influence of the state, which allowed scientists to put in perspective the partybiography of M. Hrushevsky. During the "stagnant" period, the tradition to omit the true role of M. Hrushevsky in the revolutionary events was revived.It is concluded that M. Hrushevsky’s affiliation to the Ukrainian Party of SRs was well known to soviet scholars, but their assessments of his party activities can hardly be recognized as scientifically sound. They depended on the prevailing communist ideology, political situation and the viewpoint of the authorities. Under such conditions, there is no reason to consider their conclusions and assessments to be really scientific.