Robert Conquest

[Kunikov]

[Split from "Good books on Stalin"]

Does anyone know of any good books on Stalin?

"The Great Terror- A Reassessment" Robert Conquest.

Please, stay away from Conquest.

[Uncle Joe]

Conquest´s book should not be really reviewed as a biography for it isn´t one.

Edit: I deleted some text as I mixed Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes. The latter fits the original description of Reaganite-Sharanskianism*.

*Natan Sharansky, a virulent Soviet-born Jewish "intellectual who basically preaches total American world domination to further his ideology (=unrestricted jungle capitalism masqueraded as freedom).

[V67]

Panzer Leader,

Uncle Joe is correct about Conquest's book not being a bio. His other comments are nonsense though. Nothing wrong with being a Reaganite and Americans do not wish to dominate the world; we just leave that to the Nazis and Reds. We Americans are not always right and are sometimes misguided, but we do mean well. Are we supposed to read only books by leftist authors? Remember they also have an agenda. They want to downplay the sickness of Communism/Socialism because it shows their worldview in a poor light. At least the anti-red Western writers are fundamentally correct in theirs.
Kunikov has posted in the past against using Conquest as a source but I think he is wrong. Conquest might have been off on his numbers but I suspect not that far off, and not as exorbitant as Rummel's. He might not have had access to Soviet archives when The Great Terror was originally written (1968,1970), but his works are well researched, documented, with good analysis, and most importantly accurate. It gives great insight into the Stalinist purges of the 30's. Kunikov's many posts on this forum are quite informative and insightful, and while I don't pretent to be as knowledgeable as he is on the Eastern Front and Soviet Union and certainly haven't read as many books as he (who has?); please DO read Conquest.

Adam Ulam's Stalin is an older bio that you might want to look into. I've never read it but it looks interesting.

[Kunikov]

What is reading propaganda going to do for his education of the time period and event in question, specifically "The Great Terror"? He might as well start out with authors who are less biased or at least have done the correct amount of research. Reading Conquest to understand Stalin would be the equivalent of reading Suvorov to understand the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

[V67]

I disagree. How is Conquest's work propaganda? In the West he's a well respected author. For years academia (at least the left leaning) gave him a hard time but it turns out that he was correct all along. Even his other fine work, "Harvest of Sorrow", he gets it right. Again the numbers might be off, but otherwise he is dead on. Do you disagree with his summation points 1-10 on P. 329 in Harvest?
I've never read Suvorov but understand he implies that Stalin was about to attack the Nazi's and I don't buy that for a moment. It seems that Suvorov is a revisionist and propagandist, while Conquest is certainly not.
Kunikov; obviously we are not going to agree on Conquest. As a bio on Stalin or works of that time period who do you recommend? I found Tucker's book to be excellent.

Regards.

[Kunikov]

I tried reading his "harvest" work, it was horrible. I sold it on amazon as soon as I could. Conquest, I don't know why he's respected. The man is too lazy to even edit his work. His sources were emigres with an ax to grind, that isn't an unbiased approach to history. As for my recommendation, it has already been given.

[V67]

All of his sources? Some? Looking throught the notes it doesn't seem all the sources are "emigres with an ax to grind". Is everything we read about the Soviet Union supposed to come out of their archives? Is everything accurate? I mean the Soviets never embellished or whitewashed things - everything is accurate I'm sure (wink wink). Look I'm no researcher, I'm not good like other posters with hunting down sources or pointing out every error; I'll leave that to others more qualified. In my mind you still haven't shown that Conquest is "lazy" or inaccurate. I guess we'll just disagree.

Regards.

[Kunikov]

All of his sources? Some? Looking throught the notes it doesn't seem all the sources are "emigres with an ax to grind". Is everything we read about the Soviet Union supposed to come out of their archives? Is everything accurate? I mean the Soviets never embellished or whitewashed things - everything is accurate I'm sure (wink wink). Look I'm no researcher, I'm not good like other posters with hunting down sources or pointing out every error; I'll leave that to others more qualified. In my mind you still haven't shown that Conquest is "lazy" or inaccurate. I guess we'll just disagree.

Regards.

Care to list some of his sources then? As for him being lazy, not editing his work in light of the archives is 'lazy' enough.

[V67]

Again, looking at his notes and sources, I really can't tell which ones actually came from Soviet archives and I can't tell who are disgruntled emigres. Also, the book was written in 1986, before the archives were opened. Is it possible to write an accurate book without Soviet archival sources? Maybe he's lazy because he has not edited his work since then. Maybe he hasn't had time. Maybe he stands by what he has written. Bottom line is there was a famine, millions were lost, the Soviet government kept up the grain requisitions, keep Ukranians from stores of excess grain, tried to keep them out of the cities, took every last bit of grain from the peasants, and did absolutely nothing to ease the suffering of the poplulation. While it was not planned genocide or genocide at all, the famine was used as a weapon ot terror. Where's the propaganda in that?

Regards.

[Kunikov]

Again, looking at his notes and sources, I really can't tell which ones actually came from Soviet archives and I can't tell who are disgruntled emigres. Also, the book was written in 1986, before the archives were opened. Is it possible to write an accurate book without Soviet archival sources? Maybe he's lazy because he has not edited his work since then. Maybe he hasn't had time. Maybe he stands by what he has written. Bottom line is there was a famine, millions were lost, the Soviet government kept up the grain requisitions, keep Ukranians from stores of excess grain, tried to keep them out of the cities, took every last bit of grain from the peasants, and did absolutely nothing to ease the suffering of the poplulation. While it was not planned genocide or genocide at all, the famine was used as a weapon ot terror. Where's the propaganda in that?

Regards.

Actually all of that is propaganda. The government took grain from the populations because the initial reports said the harvest was good. When they realized the reports were inaccurate they stopped the requisitions and even began to send in aid, which obviously Conquest either ignored or didn't care to write about. People were kept out of the cities because there were famines there as well and because the government didn't want it to spread. The famine was NOT a weapon especially since it was experienced throughout the Soviet Union. Now, go to Conquest's book and check if his sources include Solzhenitsyn, which it does, or Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko. THIS is why Conquest is pointless to read. YOU are now ingrained with his ideas about the famine none of which are based on the reality of what went on during the time and event in question.

[V67]

Yea but they kept taking and didn't allow the people access to the depots of grain storage. It was not experienced throughout the whole Soviet Union like it was in the Ukraine, the massive loss of life took place there. Sure I can see the government not wanting the peasants entering the cities in great numbers, that would most certainly have caused great problems. Stalin was told early on that famine was likely to occur but still took the grain and left nothing. And the reality of what went on...yea right I'll take the Communist's word for it - the regime never forcefully requisitioned grain from the peasants at gunpoint ( Lenin never did either). You know Conquest is not the only source that has these "ideas" of what went on. I'll give you Solzhenitsyn and Antonov-Ovseyenko. Solzhenitsyn might have an axe to grind I'm sure, but does that make what he's written any less true- I don't know. If my memory is correct I think Stalin had Antonov-Ovseyenko' s father liquidated. Wasn't he a Red General or party official sent to the Ukraine during the Civil War? Anyhow I'm sure he is biased. But again he probably has some good insight on what went on. I'm sure there are many Jewish authors that have a bias in regards to the Holocaut- does that render what they write pointless?

By the way I'm not that savy with computers- how the heck do I put those Emoticons in my text? Anyone?

Regards.

[Kunikov]

Yea but they kept taking and didn't allow the people access to the depots of grain storage.

Maybe in the beginning when they weren't sure about what was going on. But eventually grain and other help was being sent out to those areas which needed it.

It was not experienced throughout the whole Soviet Union like it was in the Ukraine, the massive loss of life took place there.

I doubt you have the correct figures. The point remains that Ukraine did not suffer alone thus any idea of this being a 'man made' famine or done specifically against Ukrainians is a lie.

Sure I can see the government not wanting the peasants entering the cities in great numbers, that would most certainly have caused great problems. Stalin was told early on that famine was likely to occur but still took the grain and left nothing.

Oh? Who told him? I'm not going to try to educate you on this, read Mark Tauger's articles and essays.

And the reality of what went on...yea right I'll take the Communist's word for it - the regime never forcefully requisitioned grain from the peasants at gunpoint ( Lenin never did either). You know Conquest is not the only source that has these "ideas" of what went on.

He's simply the one most like to quote as being an 'expert' on the matter.

I'll give you Solzhenitsyn and Antonov-Ovseyenko. Solzhenitsyn might have an axe to grind I'm sure, but does that make what he's written any less true- I don't know.

It means the stories he relates might be true but his ideas of how many died, or why the purges occurred, etc, are hearsay at the least.

If my memory is correct I think Stalin had Antonov-Ovseyenko' s father liquidated. Wasn't he a Red General or party official sent to the Ukraine during the Civil War? Anyhow I'm sure he is biased. But again he probably has some good insight on what went on.

Not really, according to him Stalin planned EVERYTHING that went on in the Soviet Union from the start, which is preposterous. He's also solely responsible for all the killings going on. Sure.

I'm sure there are many Jewish authors that have a bias in regards to the Holocaut- does that render what they write pointless?

Regards.

Some of them, probably. Unless they're writing memoirs. These two men did NOT write memoirs but something akin to 'history.'

[V67]

Grain being sent out to the areas that needed it? Don't know if I buy that one. Maybe Ukraine didn't suffer alone but they bore the brunt of it. The vast majority of dead were in the Ukraine. Do you believe Stalin really didn't know excessive grain requisition would cause great problems? Did the "great father" really try to help stop it? I'll try and read Mark Tauger's articles - hope he's not another socialist-economist or historian trying to downplay events.
Sure Solzhenitsyn's numbers are not correct. We all know that figures of 60-100 million dead at the hands of Lenin and Stalin are incorrect and I don't know what Solzhenitsyn feels are the reasons why the purges occurred, but they did occur and Stalin was the architect. Of course Stalin didn't plan everything from the start, and he's not solely responsible for all the killing, but again he was the architect and not much got past him. He knew what was happening and let others do his bidding.

In your opinion what books should be read to get an accurate portrayal of the purges or great famine? What about collectivization or the whole Stalin epoch in general? Thanks.

Regards.

[Kunikov]

Grain being sent out to the areas that needed it? Don't know if I buy that one. Maybe Ukraine didn't suffer alone but they bore the brunt of it. The vast majority of dead were in the Ukraine. Do you believe Stalin really didn't know excessive grain requisition would cause great problems? Did the "great father" really try to help stop it? I'll try and read Mark Tauger's articles - hope he's not another socialist-economist or historian trying to downplay events.
Sure Solzhenitsyn's numbers are not correct. We all know that figures of 60-100 million dead at the hands of Lenin and Stalin are incorrect and I don't know what Solzhenitsyn feels are the reasons why the purges occurred, but they did occur and Stalin was the architect. Of course Stalin didn't plan everything from the start, and he's not solely responsible for all the killing, but again he was the architect and not much got past him. He knew what was happening and let others do his bidding.

In your opinion what books should be read to get an accurate portrayal of the purges or great famine? What about collectivization or the whole Stalin epoch in general? Thanks.

Regards.

This is a pointless discussion. You've read Conquest and have his ideas ingrained in your head, it's annoying to say the least. The books you should read are by J Arch Getty, Roger Reese, Mark Tauger, Volkogonov, and Davies and Wheatcroft who wrote Years of Hunger. The rest is in Russian.

[AAA]

Tauger, Reese, J.Arch Getty, Wheatcroft are all shrieking Stalinist apologists. When not denying that a famine took place, they are cutting zeros off the number of victims. When not retrospectively reducing numbers of victims by an order of magnitude, they are are denying that it was deliberate. When not denying it was deliberate they are shifting blame. Or some combination of the above

Its not Conquest's ideas that are ingrained in people, its the crimes that he helped expose.