Here is the Wikipedia site “Holodomor genocide question”” 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question#cite_note-69.  The 
article includes a section on the scholarly debate, with numerous quotations 
that support Conquest’s view.  I continue to see a mainstream view (Conquest) 
with various “revisionists” who appear to be in the minority.  Again, the 
question is not whether Conquest was conclusively right or wrong on the 
ultimate question.  It is whether he is a credible historian on what happened, 
and I bet that he will continue to be the main source long after his death.

David Shemano


From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charlie
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Robert Conquest

David, you want "a single fact alleged by Conquest where you believe the 
competing evidence is more compelling and shows Conquest was wrong." Okay. 
Robert Conquest, in Harvest of Sorrow, stated that a famine in 1932-33 in the 
Ukraine and neighboring areas "was intentionally organised and maintained by 
Stalin as a conscious act of genocide against the Ukrainian people." --review 
by J. Arch Getty, London Review of Books, 22 January 1987 ( 
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v09/n02/j-arch-getty/starving-the-ukraine )

Was the famine a conscious act of genocide? From an investigative report on 
Conquest's story in the Village Voice, Jan. 12, 1988:

In 1981, the Ukrainian Research Institute approached Conquest with a major 
project: a book on the 1932-33 famine. The pot was sweetened by an $80,000 
subsidy from the Ukrainian National Association, a New Jersey-based group with 
a venerable, hard-right tradition; the UNA's newspaper, Swoboda, was banned by 
Canada during World War II for its pro-German sympathies. The grant was 
earmarked for Conquest's research expenses.

(The result was The Harvest of Sorrow. What do scholars of the field say? This:)

"There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians," said 
Alexander Dallin of Stanford, the father of modern Sovietology. "That would be 
totally out of keeping with what we know -- it makes no sense."

"This is crap, rubbish," said Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, 
whose Russian Peasants and Soviet Power broke new ground in social history.

"I absolutely reject it," said Lynne Viola of SUNY-Binghamton, the first US 
historian to examine Moscow's Central State Archive on collectivization. "Why 
in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when 
they were terrified of war [with Germany]?"

They challenge Conquest's contention that Ukrainian priests and intelligentsia 
-- two major counterrevolutionary camps -- were repressed more ruthlessly than 
anywhere else in the country. They point out that the 1932-33 famine was hardly 
confined to the Ukraine, that it reached deep into the Black Earth region of 
central Russia. They note that Stalin had far less control over 
collectivization than is widely assumed, and that radical district leaders made 
their own rules as they went along.

Excerpted from the Village Voice article posted at 
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/vv.html


If we may wind up, it is a sober lesson that the NY Times gave a man who 
paraded lurid lies as scholarly history, a man whom the profession knows is a 
charlatan, a glowing obituary with unalloyed praise for his fables.
____________________________________________________
 
Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, 
confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 
U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521.

If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or reproduce 
this transmission.

If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us 
immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from 
your system.

Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. Internal Revenue 
Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 
attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of 
(i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Robins Kaplan LLP
http://www.robinskaplan.com 
____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to