Gold from blood, Kolyma to our collections...

[DougD]

....not to get into a political thread, but I would also take the numbers the Russian historians 'discover' about the famine with a grain of salt....i would bet Ukrainian historians would come up with a number that does not match what the Russians say...

[medals73]

There are Historians and there are political Hacks. Do not confuse the two.

[new world]

There are Historians and there are political Hacks. Do not confuse the two.

And which category would you place Conquest into?

[medals73]

And which category would you place Conquest into?

Easy question: political Hack (sub-variety: Cold War)

Though, actually, I'd need to review his scholarly corpus (not ever having bothered to purchase any) and see what sources he cites in his footnotes and how many are in languages other than English.

[new world]

Easy question: political Hack (sub-variety: Cold War)

Though, actually, I'd need to review his scholarly corpus (not ever having bothered to purchase any) and see what sources he cites in his footnotes and how many are in languages other than English.

We think alike

[DougD]

Sorry, I disagree. Conquest, while not perfect (his bio of Stalin was weak compared to others of the time), was quite a good historian of the Soviet era when it was a difficult area to research.

If one disagrees with his facts, they should say which facts and why. To simply attack him is not really a valid argument against the points he makes and rings hollow.

To come to his numbers of how many dead in the 'hunger' and the collectivization (i will not use famine as that implies a natural disaster) he used Soviet census data (mostly the first census "after", in 1937); this has gotten him attacked by both sides as he is one of very few to actually put out a figure (high for some like Duranty, low for others, like Davies). This might have been a poor idea as the Soviet census was not known to be very accurate, and he might have even under-counted the loss. Khrushchev himself said no one kept count.

He also used the census when coming to his numbers about the purges.

To claim he did not have access to Russian archives is simply not true; he had broad access to the archives during the later Gorbachev era and was able to republish an edited version of his estimates on the 'hunger', very much in line with his first.

So, if one wants to discount him simply because they do not like him, that's fine; but thats a personal, not historical, argument.

[new world]

Doug,

No one is specifically attacking him.

My point was that his books should not be taken as absolute truth and widespread conclusions should not be drawn based on his books (such as related to gold, blood and awards).

The reality is that Conquest created his works during times of cold war, when all sorts of methods were used to paint dark pictures of the enemy.

The other side is guilty of the propaganda as well. It all depends on the client and the purpose, most of the books from the period should be read with caution.

William

[DougD]

Hello William,

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted "political hack".

As for him being the penultimate historian of the era, I am not sure I said or even implied that. As for the argument about medals, etc., that was not mine nor do a really subscribe to it.

However, to simply portray Conquest as a “cold war” historian, and thus place doubt in his conclusions, is simply not valid. If we were talking about a system that did not allow other points of view, if this were an account of the Ukrainian 'hunger' written in Nazi Germany, I would agree with you: he would simply have been a mouthpiece of the regime.

Instead, his books were written in a free society, one where counter arguments and other points of view are encouraged. He was attacked with great venom by those who opposed his conclusions from 1968 through the 1980s. There was no protection here; his arguments were up for review, for challenge. Where have been the revelations about his use of false evidence, incorrect facts, etc? In a free society, where his argument can be discussed, dissected, and refuted, this should have happened if he were simply a political propagandist. With the opening of the Soviet archives his overall assessments should have been destroyed if they were improperly reached, or based on false facts. In general they were not, though others read the census reports differently than he does (conclusions anywhere from 10 to 50 million lost).

To simply call him a cold war propagandist is to imply that his was protected, state sponsored research. That's simply not the case.

Again, if you want to call him a "Cold Warrior" and thus deny his credibility without having to dispute his facts, you are making a broad brushed assessment, rather then a historical argument.

DougD

[Art]

Let's avoid this getting political. I think everyone has voiced their opinion concisely up to this point.

[Kirchgoens]

I guess I stirred the pot a bit there.

Just to lighten it up a bit... I was a genuine "Cold Warrior" for a brief time, having served in the 3d Armored Division with battle positions near Bad Hersfeld, just across the border from the Soviet 28th CAA, and was serving in Germany when the Wall came down. As a partial result of that "Peace Dividend" that freed up a couple major combat units from Germany, I was in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/Iraq 13 months later, and again 13 years after that.

I also have some experience (more than many Americans, not as much as some in this forum) with the former Soviet Union, and I don't hear too many people pine for the old days pre-razval. Many just seem to want to find a way to emigrate west or at simply get a chance to succeed at home. Other than in a couple major cities or near the oil and gas, that's a bit tough to do right now.

I am eternally grateful I carry the passport with the eagle (yeah, I know there are several; I mean the "screaming" one)...