Plan for an essay reviewing a book on Stalin's rule. "The Great Terror: A Reassessment", Robert Conquest

3. Evaluation of Sources

• Argument arises from Conquest’s view that Stalin personally manipulated Soviet system, rather than merely setting forces of Great Terror in motion
• Intent to convey Stalin’s personal involvement at all stages – the effect of his “nerve” on the particular arena of Soviet politics in the 1930’s
•  When first published, by far the most complete account available of the purge trials; value lay in publicizing what was unprintable in the Soviet Union
• New edition valuable for having been produced in two historical contexts, and for the particular care and notice given to documentation
• Well written, with trial transcript excerpts and individual stories interwoven with historical analysis – Bukharin’s trial transcript particularly compelling, in terms of giving his struggle a human dimension (Conquest 371-3)
• Deals directly with issues of documentation: “It was a matter of balancing and assessing incomplete, partial, and uneven material” (Conquest ii), with references in the body of the work to changes made since the last edition  
• Particularly interesting and well argued assertion: “After the first executions, no oppositionists of any standing were in a position to attempt assassination whether they thought it suitable or not” (Conquest 106), due to the loss of the myth of security within the Party
• Some points could be developed more fully: “Lenin (often a poor judge of men)” (Conquest 10) is somewhat jarring as it stands, as is the assertion, “No doubt all revolutions are doomed to vulgarization” (Conquest 59); both could be expanded effectively
• Also, work identifies some of its own limitations in documentation, e.g., that “the bare facts” of Stalin’s childhood “are in dispute” (Conquest 55)

4. Analysis

• Provides a broad and measured account of a critical period in Soviet history, opening the door to further research in a number of areas concerning the purge trials
• Evidence both clear and well connected; certainly convincing that Stalin was direct manipulator of the Great Terror, though the role of the “little Stalin” bureaucrats after the official end of the Great Terror period could be more extensively explored
• Specifically, I wonder to what extent the continuing show trials reflected Great Terror mentality and practices; did the Great Terror truly end in the late 1930’s, as Conquest suggests, merely because Stalin no longer deemed it useful to him?
• Conquest’s assertion that the Kirov murder was the crux of the Great Terror’s inception supported particularly well and from a number of angles – speculation as to Stalin’s thought process (coheres with earlier political decisions) and explanation of particular political context that would allow for a purge then
• Mentions in the body of the work corrections since the last edition; to some extent calls into question Conquest’s methodology, as he probably should have made note of questionable data originally; his preface does establish that, now, most information is known beyond reasonable doubt
• Conquest fulfills his intent, delivering a convincing account of Stalin at the forefront of the Great Terror

5. Conclusion

• This work a strong basis for a larger research paper, as it is clear, reasonable, and well-documented; thesis supported well, and only mild documentation limitations
• Also, broad enough to introduce a number of areas of interest in terms of the causes, course, and implications of the purge trials

6. Bibliography

• Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror: A Reassessment. New York: 1991

Oxford University Press