Talk:Great Purge/western reactions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is the official paragraph being worked on. See edit history for history
" Despite great scepticism regarding the show trials and occasional reports of Gulag survivors, many western intellectuals retained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union which persisted until evidence and the results of research began to appear after Stalin's death. The first of these sources were the relevations of [[Nikita Khrushchev|Khrushchev]], then, the writings of [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]], the publication of ''The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties'' by [[Robert Conquest]] in the late 1960s, the release of Soviet records during [[glasnost]] and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]''<!--Page 466,476-480,485-489 ''Great Terror'' ISBN 0195071328, ix-xx, Forward, Black Book of Communism, ISBN 0674076087-->. Minimizations of the Great Purge continues among [[revisionist history|revisionist scholars]] in the United States<!--Pages 15 to 17, ''In Denial'', ISBN 1893554724--> and diehard supporters of Stalin."
[edit] comments
These sentences look like they came out of a Faulkner novel. I've broken them up so some caluses and separated.
Despite great scepticism regarding the show trials and occasional reports of Gulag survivors,
many western intellectuals retained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union
which persisted until evidence and the results of research began to appear after Stalin's death
with, first, the relevations of Khrushchev,
Khrushev's revelations are covered at On the Personality Cult and its Consequences, see also Communist_Party_USA#The_crises_of_1956 and the external link included Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
then, the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
From Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn see this paragraph:
"The novel about Ivan Denisovich brought the Soviet system of forced labor to the attention of the West, but it was his monumental history of the massive Soviet concentration camps for both criminal and political prisoners that made it impossible for either the West or the Soviet Union to ignore the realities of the Communist regime. No longer was this an issue for anti-communists only; all Western democracies had to confront it." Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
the publication of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest in the late 1960s,
See The Great Terror.
the release of Soviet records during glasnost
and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of The Black Book of Communism.
See The Black Book of Communism, not sure what state this article is in however. Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
This timeline is all over the place, the death of Stalin to 1997? This makes no sense. I think it needs to be broken up into three periods - Stalin until the end of the Warsaw Pact, immediately after the Warsaw Pact ends and some records come out, and then the time after that.
The timeline is in chronilogical order. To be sure it could be expanded, but the article is about the Great Purge, not intellectual history. Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
There are other ridiculous things here. The same intellectuals took Khruschev, Solzhenitsyn and Conquest all the same level of credibility, and all had the same exact effect on them? This is ridiculous. Khrushchev's speech (among other things) had the effect of turning Mao against Khruschev, not against Stalin or anything that happened under him.
People in the know didn't need Khrushchev to clue them in. But there was and there remains a remnant within the intellectual community in the West which either didn't believe the information, thought it was anti-communist propaganda or made excuses. Of course each event had a cumulative effect which varied depending on why they had not known about what was going on. Mao is definitely a special case. I do not understand why he thought what he did. But, in any case, not a Western intellectual. Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
And what does "western intellectuals" mean anyway? The US Ambassador to the USSR? The New York Times? People like John Dewey?
I think item number one is break these into sentences of under 20 words so they make sense. Ruy Lopez 22:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) .
Minimizations of the Great Purge continues among revisionist scholars in the United States and diehard supporters of Stalin.
[edit] more comments
I've broken this 99 word sentence into two sentences.
This:
Despite great scepticism regarding the show trials and occasional reports of Gulag survivors, many western intellectuals retained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union which persisted until evidence and the results of research began to appear after Stalin's death with, first, the relevations of Khrushchev, then, the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the publication of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest in the late 1960s, the release of Soviet records during glasnost and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of The Black Book of Communism.
becomes:
Despite great scepticism regarding the show trials and occasional reports of Gulag survivors, many western intellectuals retained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union which persisted until evidence and the results of research began to appear after Stalin's death. The first of these sources were the relevations of Khrushchev, then, the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the publication of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest in the late 1960s, the release of Soviet records during glasnost and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of The Black Book of Communism.
A period is inserted where a comma was and it is rewritten slightly. This 99 word sentence makes no sense and was too unwieldy. I haven't really changed anything except in breaking one very long sentence into two shorter ones. If you want to break the sentences up in another way, please do so. Ruy Lopez 01:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
