Talk:The Great Terror (book)

Historians' assessments of Conquest

Various people (usually anonymous) keep wanting to edit this article to the effect that recent historians have revised Conquest's estimates of the death toll under Stalin downwards. This may be so, but it cannot be made as an unsupported assertion. Names, publications and quotations must be cited for this claim to be established. On the other hand, as noted above, some Russian writers have revised Conquest's estimates upwards. The broader point, however, is whether a reevaluation of the history of the 1930s in the light of evidence now available in the Soviet archives in some way validates the attacks on Conquest's reputation by Soviet apologists both in the 1960s and today. Of course it does not. For a writer with no access to archival sources in the Soviet Union, Conquest did a brilliant job of reconstructing the events of the 1930s. Even if it turns out that his overall estimates were too high or (as seems more likely) too low, that is in no way a reflection on Conquest's status as a historian. Adam 11:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Unless another source mentioned this book directly, it should not be used. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Challenge to Evil

I really have to say something in response to the semi-literate nonsense-undated and unsigned-that appears above. Conquest's work is a brilliant condemation of the horrors of Stalinism and the moral abdication-or blindness-of a whole generation of Western intellectuals. The only criticism I have is that he sees Stalin, perhaps, as uniquely malevolent, when Lenin, Trotsky and the rest of the Bolshevik gangsters were in every way as bad. "One death", Stalin said, "is a tragedy; a million death's is a statistic". The truth of course, as anyone with any moral sense understands, is that a million deaths is a million tragedies. To try to argue that a lesser figure somehow makes the crime less heinous betrays the true rottenness at the heart of all Marxist thought. White Guard 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed my post as I do not wish to go into deeper discussion.Neetzach 15:16, 9 September 2006 (CEST)

The above comment by White Guard is in reply to the comment I have reposted below. I was curious and had to go hunting for it so stick it back here for interest. It is bad netiquette to delete comments or edit other's comments.... Just noticed this is from 2006, sod it, I'll repost anyway.--Lead holder (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of the Soviet archives

The interesting thing about this matter is that everyone was looking forward to analyse Soviet archives but later when the actual numbers were known, noone ever spoke about it. The facts presented in American Historical Review in article called "Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years:A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence" by J. ARCH GETTY, GABOR T. RITTERSPORN, and VIKTOR N. ZEMSKOV, show that the number is far lower then Conquest's estimates. Another, interesting thing that you can find about Conquest is that he worked for Information Research Department. Why is that important? According to the Guardian article from Friday, January 27, 1978, and Observer article from January 29 the same year, IRD is Foreign Office's department to spread anti-communist propaganda. Those sources also reveal the connection of Conquest and CIA in regards of his works.Neetzach.

Loss of a great anecdote

Letter from Mr Conquest. "...the "I told you so, etc." comment was actually made, and attributed to me, by the ever-inventive Kingsley [Amis]."

Well, it don't get more definitive than that. Darn. Always liked that one ;-) Hmmm. Maybe we can fit it in on the KA page? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A slight 'false' in article

this line could be a problem.

"Some Communists continue to deny the claims made in The Great Terror, despite their vindication by Russian and other historians (as in the writings of Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, Dmitri Volkogonov, and the Black Book of Communism) following the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the Soviet archives. In an attempt to discredit Conquest's work, Communist writers accuse him of relying on "Nazi collaborators, émigrés, and the CIA," and characterize his work with British intelligence and the Foreign Office as "production of anti-Soviet propaganda.""

1. Soviet archives gives a nuber far lower than Conquest's propsed numbers. 2. Both Yakolev and Volkogonov's views are anti-soviet, and in especial, Yakolev's view greatly differs from majority of Russian scholars.

I propose to change the line into this:

"Some Communists continue to deny the claims made in The Great Terror, and accuses him of relying on Nazi collaborators, émigrés, and the CIA," and characterize his work with British intelligence and the Foreign Office as "production of anti-Soviet propaganda."

However, some Russian, and other historians, such as Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, and Dmitri Volkogonov, agrees on Conquest's views."

If anyone has a better proposal, please fix this part instead of me.

If there is no reply for a week, I'll change the part myself.

Where is article?

Is disappearded ip address. why? I miss article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.207.65.136 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This article cited Spartacus Schoolnet as a reference. This site has been repeatedly discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN. It is a self-published source WP:SPS that cannot be used as a reference for a Wikipedia article.[1]. References to this source have been removed and replaced with a tag. The associated text has been retained for now. Better sources must be found for this text; text that is not supported by an inline reference to a Reliable Source may be removed.Fladrif (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a reliable source per se. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section consists mainly of Conquest's responses and very little of actual criticism, which is in abundance. This ought to be cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.241.224 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

moved from my talk page

Can you clarify what exactly you didn’t like about my addition on Great Terror book by Robert Conquest? He is a proven propaganda talking head and not historian. He did admit that he relies on gossips and not on documented facts in his "research" Antidyatel (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Not "proven", but an opinion. He wrote his books based on information at the time. Because the Soviets heavily doctored their history, no wonder some of his conclusion were mistaken. In later books he admitted mistakes. In my books, it is called "proper scholarsip". Again, because Soviets thoroughly falsified historicl records, he had to analyze "word of mouth". The fact that he readily admits this is also a mark of true scholarship. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your addition into the article is your personal conclusion about Conquests's qualities based on the references cited, which constitutes "original research". Therefore it was reverted. A wikipedian can and must add conclusions about Conquest found in reliable sources, with proper attribution of the authorsip. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. His books formed the basis for anti-Stalin campaign. It was propaganda not historical analysis. And as nicely put in the Guardian article that i linked, COnquest was "fertilizing" the minds towards that goal. In all the thousands pages of his "research" the main source is Khruschev's speech of 1956. In none of the books, to my knowledge, he was kind to provide the whole, not so long, transcript of the speech. Anyone who reads it would understand the quality of the arguments and petty lying by Khruschev and thus, through that speech as total rubbish. Just the phrase of "Stalin controlled armies using globes" was striking enough. Also in the speech Khruschev was not complaining about persecution of common folk, he participated in those himself. He only complained that fellow communists were persecuted. Anyone who reads what those persecuted communists actually did, while they were in power, would find their treatment as too mild. Conquest doesn't tell you about it. Assuming connection of Conquest and George Orwell one can easily make the conclusion of why the term Great Terror was created. Animal Farm was only 50% about horrible Stalin was, the other 50% was whitewashing of Trotsky. Similarly Great Terror is just hush down the much more repulsive policies of Trotsky during Red Terror. With his gossip based analysis Conquest created the mythology that nobody needs to doubt anymore. That is why Appelbaum and Beevor just refer to COnquest and don't need to prove any of their claims. What was the problem for Conquest to refer to League of Nations 1948 report about the famine in USSR. That was the first time the 5 million as a rough estimate was presented. The difference, the methodology of getting that number is clearly explained there and also all the aspects of the famine were explained, particularly the important one is the numbers for cattle and pigs. And all the information is taken from open sources from USSR government, even more from Stalin's speech itself. Nothing was hidden. No need to rely on word of mouth. And all those documents were available to Conquest. He could also directly quote from Stalin speeches and articles that were available to him. Most of the events were given interpretation from the other side. Even if Conquest disagreed with interpretation he would provide both sides of the story, if he was an honest historian. But he was a propaganda shill, not interested in facts but in winning propaganda war. Nothing admirable is in his scholarship. The sources that I provided are reliable and not disputed. It was not just based on my opinion. His work in propaganda department of Foreign Office is a fact. His admission that he relied on gossip is also a fact. And most importantly he did rely on gossips - IT IS A FACT. And you should not censor it, if I understand the guidelines of wikipedia correctly. I'm fine to tone down my despise of his character but these facts should be included about him and his Great Terror book.

Similar to him there is Russian writer Radzinski, who was forced to admit that his book Stalin is not a history book but a history inspired novel, although when he was selling his book he was selling it as historical analysis. He was caught due to claims or references to archives. What are surprise it was when just one concerned citizen requested in all possible archives about which documents Radzinski was shown, and it appeared that citizen Radzinski never visited even one archive? This kind of historians should be exposed and shamed publicly.

Antidyatel (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This is why wikipedia sucks. white male liberals are the only ones who edit and approve things on this site. hardly an unbiased "encyclopedia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.38.232 (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)