View Full Essay Words: Before the end of orld ar II, the three world leaders had carved up the world. Germany and Poland were divided.
This view dominated public and political discourse in the immediate post-World War II decades. After the s public support for this assumption declined but remained strong. Lenin laid the foundation for stalinism essay scholars, however, Soviet espionage and American communism were distinctly separate activities and linkage between the two was seen as weak or nonexistent.
As a consequence, there was little overlap between the historiography of the two fields of study. This paper will review these separate historiographic traditions and how in the late s the two partially merged and appear likely to remain linked for the foreseeable future.
The Historiography of Soviet Espionage in the United States Given the intense public and governmental concern about Soviet espionage in the early Cold War it is not surprising that a vast literature on the subject has accumulated.
What is surprising, however, it that very little of it has been written by historians, political scientist, or others trained in professional scholarship. Journalists, popular writers, and polemical advocates produced most of the books and essays on Soviet espionage in America, along with a considerable body of memoir and autobiographical writings by people involved in espionage or internal security.
A few example are: A Generation on Trial: Prior to the s there were, in fact, few scholarly books on the history of Soviet espionage.
Many academics no doubt shied away from the issue because of the scarcity of primary sources and sensationalistic aspects of the topic. He subjected the testimony of leading defectors from Soviet espionage and the Communist Party to a skeptical examination that assumed their testimony was suspect unless unimpeachable documentary corroboration was readily available.
The extravagance of her claims about her espionage contacts, the vagueness of her testimony about the content of the secret material that she allegedly received, the absence of corroboration for most of her story, and above all, her evasiveness as a witness, all combine to raise serious doubts about her reliability.
One does not write a history of what one believes to have been largely mythical. Caute, Theoharis, and others, consequently, wrote not about Soviet espionage but about McCarthyism and what they regarded as manufactured anti-Communist panic about a non-existent link between the American Communist party and Soviet espionage, with the latter treated as insignificant in extent or importance.
Both books withstood angry assaults: Notably, however, no scholars produced a comprehensive response to either book. No historian went over the huge body of evidence that Weinstein, Radosh, and Milton reviewed and wrote a scholarly book setting out the case for the innocence of Alger Hiss or Julius Rosenberg.
Even though a logical conclusion was that Soviet espionage might have been more serious than the prevailing consensus, its full scope remained shrouded. And, despite the lack of competing comprehensive scholarly books taking a contrary stance, a still-significant number of historians continued to insist that Julius Rosenberg and Alger Hiss were innocent.
Nor did the two books stimulate other professional historians to a greater interest in studying the history of Soviet espionage.
Despite her central role in persuading the American public that Soviet spies had thoroughly penetrated the government, there was no scholarly biography of Bentley. Nor did scholars produce an in depth study of the defector Louis Budenz, the convicted spies Jack Soble and Judith Coplon, the complex Amerasia affair, or the Gouzenko case in Canada with its American implications.
Prior to the s and the collapse of Soviet communism, writing about the history of Soviet espionage in America in the Stalin era remained largely the province of journalists, popular writers, and memoirists.
The prevailing academic consensus at the end of the s, while shaken by Perjury and The Rosenberg File, remained committed to a minimalist view of Soviet espionage and saw little involvement by the CPUSA.
The entirely separate historiography of the American Communist movement sustained and supported this belief. It was a thorough survey based on a close reading of the radical press as well as the leaflets, statements, and proclamations put out by the various groups and individuals involved.
So far as we know, until the final years of the s Soviet intelligence agencies had only a transitory and limited presence in the United States. Little was available, apart from newspaper stories and the records of congressional investigations.
Formal FBI reports and statements of findings were used, but not the underlying investigatory files; those would not be made public until the s and the Freedom of Information Act. Historians who wanted additional primary material had to obtain it themselves. Theodore Draper, in particular, was indefatigable: Draper, however, was exceptional in his success in unearthing primary material.
A number of the volumes in the series suffered from the limited availability of archival documentation and the dearth of supporting monographic studies of particular incidents and controversies.
Nonetheless, many of the books uncovered fascinating material and remain useful as well as pioneering works. Most of the authors were left-of-center and all shared an anti-Communist perspective. Many were democratic socialist or New Deal liberal veterans of bruising battles with Communists and their allies in trade unions, intellectual organizations and political groups while some had gone through the CPUSA and learned to distrust it.
American Communism in Crisis,a thoughtful, poignant book by Joseph Starobin, former foreign editor of the Daily Worker who left the CPUSA and took up a new career as an academic historian, adopted a similar viewpoint.
A Critical History, dismissed the subject as unworthy of serious attention by devoting all of two sentences to it, writing: Very probably the extent of that infiltration has been exaggerated, though there can be little doubt that Communist spies and agents found their way into the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic Services, and the Treasury Department.
Nor did Starobin discuss espionage, even though he was writing about an era during which the CPUSA was deeply involved with Soviet intelligence agencies and several prominent Party officials, including Browder and Steve Nelson were publicly accused of ties to them.Apr 19, · Stalinism emerged as a break from the Bolshevik tradition.
Stalin had to defeat the Bolshevik Party of in order to consolidate his power and the victory of the bureaucracy. Stalin's plan is summed up in the phrase he first used in the fall of "socialism in one country. Stalinism is the means of governing and related policies implemented from around to by Joseph Stalin (–).
Stalinist policies and ideas as developed in the Soviet Union included rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, a totalitarian state, collectivization of agriculture, a cult of personality and subordination of the interests of foreign communist.
Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein on 7 November , the fifth child of a Ukrainian Jewish family of wealthy farmers in Yanovka or Yanivka, in the Kherson governorate of the Russian Empire (now Bereslavka, in Ukraine), a small village 24 kilometres (15 mi) from the nearest post monstermanfilm.com parents were David Leontyevich Bronstein (–) and his wife Anna Lvovna (née.
Essay Three Part Two: Abstractionism -- Or, 'Science' On The cheap. Preface. For some reason I can't work out, Internet Explorer 11 will no longer play the video I have posted to this page. Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein on 7 November , the fifth child of a Ukrainian Jewish family of wealthy farmers in Yanovka or Yanivka, in the Kherson governorate of the Russian Empire (now Bereslavka, in Ukraine), a small village 24 kilometres (15 mi) from the nearest post monstermanfilm.com parents were David Leontyevich Bronstein (–) and his wife Anna Lvovna (née. The main foundation of the brilliant successes of Lenin and Stalin as the leaders of the Russian Revolution lies in their deep mastery of Marxian theory. Marx and Engels laid the foundations of socialism by establishing its main scientific principles. Leninism-Stalinism also was the theoretical basis of the international policy of the.
The main foundation of the brilliant successes of Lenin and Stalin as the leaders of the Russian Revolution lies in their deep mastery of Marxian theory. Marx and Engels laid the foundations of socialism by establishing its main scientific principles. Leninism-Stalinism also was the theoretical basis of the international policy of the.
|Popular Topics||Many intellectuals, dissidents and even many allies were put to death under Stalin. This, in turn, led to the Cold War and to the periodic international crises and the endless exchanges of hostile rhetoric in United Nations leadership circles until the final years of the Soviet Union.|
"The ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, 4th April (London)). Joseph Stalin in an authorised image taken in and used for state publicity purposes.