J. Arch Getty

[Chimurenga.]

I just came across him on Wikipedia recently and his stance on Stalin's role with the Great Purges is interesting. I guess what I want to ask is, to those who have read his books, are they worth picking up?

[A.J.]

I just came across him on Wikipedia recently and his stance on Stalin's role with the Great Purges is interesting. I guess what I want to ask is, to those who have read his books, are they worth picking up?

I would recommend his The Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party reconsidered - 1933-1938

Amongst other things Getty's research demolishes the trotskyite view that the Ezhovschchina was created by a conservative bureaucracy trying to eliminate revolutionaries but rather, in complete contrast, an attempt to rid the bureaucracy of potentially counter-revolutionary elements within it.

[Chimurenga.]

I would recommend his The Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party reconsidered - 1933-1938

Amongst other things Getty's research demolishes the trotskyite view that the Ezhovschchina was created by a conservative bureaucracy trying to eliminate revolutionaries but rather, in complete contrast, an attempt to rid the bureaucracy of potentially counter-revolutionary elements within it.

That is actually the book I was most interested in. It's a shame I can't find a copy on the cheap online at the moment. I'll have to keep looking.

[bailey_187]

His book "The Road to Terror" is good. "Origins" seems ok, but IIRC it is not based of the archives opened in ~1991, but on the Smolensk archive only

[Chimurenga.]

His book "The Road to Terror" is good. "Origins" seems ok, but IIRC it is not based of the archives opened in ~1991, but on the Smolensk archive only

To someone like myself, who is just getting into reading about Stalin, what were the differences with the different archives?

[bailey_187]

To someone like myself, who is just getting into reading about Stalin, what were the differences with the different archives?

Well all the Soviet archives, while the USSR existed were closed to historians. However, IIRC in WW2 the Germans seized the local party archives from Smolensk, which the USA then took. So between 1945 to 1991 (when the rest of the archives in the USSR were opened) these were the only archives historians on Soviet history had to work with. So history about the USSR written after the whole arhcives were open is much more reliable.

[Chimurenga.]

Well all the Soviet archives, while the USSR existed were closed to historians. However, IIRC in WW2 the Germans seized the local party archives from Smolensk, which the USA then took. So between 1945 to 1991 (when the rest of the archives in the USSR were opened) these were the only archives historians on Soviet history had to work with. So history about the USSR written after the whole arhcives were open is much more reliable.

Ah. Can you recommend any reading based on information found from the latter archives?

[Robocommie]

Well all the Soviet archives, while the USSR existed were closed to historians. However, IIRC in WW2 the Germans seized the local party archives from Smolensk, which the USA then took. So between 1945 to 1991 (when the rest of the archives in the USSR were opened) these were the only archives historians on Soviet history had to work with. So history about the USSR written after the whole arhcives were open is much more reliable.

I had a Russian professor explain that some archives were open to general study, including non-Soviet citizens, but some archives were restricted and you were required to have special security access to research them. Either way however, the only way non-Soviets could read the files was by requesting documents from library staff, and have them brought to the reading room, but if said staff didn't really feel like digging through the archives to find a particular document they could just inform them that said documents were in Special Storage and therefore off-limits. After the collapse of the Soviet Union though, that restriction was lifted.

Unfortunately, he said that after 1991, government funding for research of Russian history dropped off significantly because the Feds just didn't give a fuck anymore.

[bailey_187]

Ah. Can you recommend any reading based on information found from the latter archives?

Robert Thurston - Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia
Getty - The Road to Terror

[Chimurenga.]

Robert Thurston - Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia
Getty - The Road to Terror

I'll definitely check that last one out. Thanks everyone for the responses.

[ComradeOm]

I had a Russian professor explain that some archives were open to general study, including non-Soviet citizens, but some archives were restricted and you were required to have special security access to research them. Either way however, the only way non-Soviets could read the files was by requesting documents from library staff, and have them brought to the reading room, but if said staff didn't really feel like digging through the archives to find a particular document they could just inform them that said documents were in Special Storage and therefore off-limits. After the collapse of the Soviet Union though, that restriction was liftedEven with most of the explicit restrictions lifted from the state archives its still pretty difficult to get access. Partly this is cultural/language reasons but there's also a host of practical issues. For example, there is not one single archive location or organisation but a whole host of them. For example, the archives maintained by the Russian Communist Party are vast and cover a huge number of important documents dealing with government (as you'd expect) but AFAIK there is still a rule in place that you have to be a paying Communist to access them. Similarly the Russian Army and other bodies have their own archives and their own rules

Crucially though is the fact that a huge number of documents from sensitive periods (particularly the '30s) were labelled as state secrets and are still considered as such. There was a period of liberalisation in the early '90s but, from what I've heard, the last few years have seen a real tightening of the rules regarding these documents

I'm also fairly sure that you still have to go through the librarian to get access to documents. They don't let you wander around the archive rooms but instead you submit a list of works you want and wait for them to process it. So this istochnikovedenie (study of archives/sources) is really a practised skill that researchers in Russia have to acquire

[Invader Zim]

Well all the Soviet archives, while the USSR existed were closed to historians. However, IIRC in WW2 the Germans seized the local party archives from Smolensk, which the USA then took. So between 1945 to 1991 (when the rest of the archives in the USSR were opened) these were the only archives historians on Soviet history had to work with. So history about the USSR written after the whole arhcives were open is much more reliable.
That isn't strictly true, from the 1980s onwards western historians began to gain access to archives within the Soviet Union, and Soviet historians had gained limited access even before then.

Of course things were not nearly that simple, as a friend of mine who works on Russian history explained, you were able to request certain documents but only if you knew what they were and no catalogues were provided. So, in other words, you had to know exactly what you wanted to see before you went.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The background to this attempt to re-habilitate Stalin can be found here:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/joseph-stalin-nostalgia/

[RED DAVE]

The only people among whom Stalin needs "rehabilitation" are the liberals and Trotskyists.:(I admitted I was powerless over Stalinism; that my life has become unmanageable. :D

Having had direct experience with US Stalinists in unions and in mass movements, I look forward to watching them shoot themselves in the foot in the same way they have done since the mid-1930s.

I guess their slogan will be: "Communism is 21st Century Americanism."

RED DAVE

[MarxSchmarx]

Did Stalin actually write that corpus of books or were they for the most part ghost written?

[Chimurenga.]

You know, I really didn't ask opinions about Stalin or whatever this degenerated into. I simply asked opinions about an American historian that I didn't know much about. So unless you can recommend me something or you have an opinion about the author, please, take it somewhere else.

[RED DAVE]

Having had direct experience with US Stalinists
Like a typical liberal all your posts are biased towards your little experiences in your little city.

Internationalism is for us "Stalinists" I guessWell, having been politically active in England France, with some connections in Haiti and Mexico, I think I've have some experiences away from my "little city," which happens to b e New York.

On second thought, why don't you humor me in my provinciality and tell us how effective the US Stalinists have been for the last 70 years of so, especially in the unions.

RED DAVE