The purpose of the symposium was a re-evaluation of soviet historiography appraisals and methodology. This was the main task of the symposium and all representatives tried to show it with the concrete material and by an example of their own countries.

My report was about the 1924-year rebellion and its evaluation in the soviet and post-soviet historiography. I presented this report in English, which was interpreted simultaneously into the Japanese language.

After a short historical introduction (reporters had 15 minutes, a translator also had 15 min.), I admitted that this theme started to avoid the soviet stereotypes only in 90-s of XX century. Several works were published on this theme and at the same time, archives of the soviet Security Committee, which were closed before, became accessible and works about this issue started to publish. Should be noted significant works of N. Kirtadze (Kutaisi, 1996; Tbilisi, 1999.) Later, the 1924 rebellion was researched by G. Tsitsishvili, Al. Daushvili, K. Tsenguashvili, D. Shvelidze and others. Some interesting documents on this issue were published by G. Gelashvili (Tbilisi, 2000) and O. Janelidze (Tbilisi, 1999).

I noted at the symposium that in spite of serious changes, several issues are not studied properly yet. The 1924-year rebellion is not researched completely; no one has compared the rebellion to the similar incidents in Georgia or internationally by the new methodology. Besides, while evaluating this incident, in post-soviet historiography one can observe wrong and often, not national appraisals (for example, the rebellion was inspired by the Soviet security organs from the beginning and also heads of rebellion should not be radicals and think about compromises (?!) and so on.).

It was underlined in the report that 1924-year rebellion needs further research, analyzes and re-evaluation of old and wrong appraisals.

At the summing meeting of the symposium the Japanese side asked, how is the relation of an each post-soviet country to Russia and what they await. My response was that Georgia has significant but unfortunately, negative experience in this case. From the example of our country, can be concluded that Russia (Monarchic, Soviet and Post-soviet) never took responsibility to defend signed international agreements and on they contrary, it was used as the platform for the further aggression.
These my appraisals were accepted without any comment from the Japanese side, but nobody expressed opposite opinions also.

With words of the international meeting organizers, a symposium was a success and the Centre of study of the northern-eastern Asia at Tohoku University will continue its collaboration with colleagues in future too. I also want to note with gratitude that all expanses: flight from Georgia to Sendai and my one-week stay there, were covered by the Japanese side. Hosts tried their best to show me Sendai, resort place Macushima and Tokyo.

I suppose that relation between our countries will get more intensive and close in future. To my doubt, the links too.