This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Creating the Stalinist other: Anglo-American historiography of Stalin and Stalinism, 1925-2013 Ariane M. M. Galy Doctor of Philosophy The University of Edinburgh 2013 Declaration: I declare that the work contained within has been composed by me and is entirely my own work. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. Signed……………………………………………………………… i Abstract The Western historiography of Stalin and Stalinism produced in the period 1925 to the present day is a strikingly varied body of work in which the nature of Stalin, his regime and his role within his regime have been and continue to be the subject of debate. This characteristic is all the more striking when we consider that from the earliest years of the period under study there has been a general understanding of the nature of the Stalinist regime, and of the policies and leader which have come to define it. This thesis analyses the principal influences on research which have led to this body of work acquiring such a varied nature, and which have led to an at times profoundly divided Western, and more specifically Anglo-American, scholarship. It argues that the combined impact of three key formative influences on research in the West over the period of study, and their interaction with each other, reveal recurring themes across the whole historiography, while also accounting for the variety of interpretations in evidence. The first impact identified is the lack of accessibility to sources during the Soviet period, which posed a constant and real obstacle to those in the West writing on Stalin and Stalinism, and the impact of the removal of this obstacle in the post-Soviet era. The second is the influence of wider historiographical trends on this body of work, such as the emergence of social history. Finally the thesis argues that evolving Western attitudes to Stalin and Stalinism over this period have played a key role in constructions of Stalin and his regime, demonstrating an on-going historical process of the othering of Russia by the West. The extent and nature of this othering in turn provide a central line of enquiry of the thesis. Tightly intertwined with all three impacts has been the changing global political context over the period in question which provides the evolving and influential contextual backdrop to this study, and which has given this body of work a deeply political and personal character. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements page v Introduction 1 1. Western historiography of Stalin and Stalinism: research questions 1 2. Russia under Western eyes 5 3. Scholarship to date 10 4. Thesis structure 16 5. Chapter summary 23 1. Trotsky versus Stalin: the first Stalinist other, 1925-1946 28 1.1 Introduction 28 1.2 Machiavellian, brutal and crude: depictions of Stalin 30 1.3 On Stalinism 40 1.4 Exiles and émigrés: writing on Stalinism in the 1930s and 1940s 50 1.5 Conclusion: Trotskyism and the Stalinist other 57 2. Conflict of the Two Worlds: Stalinism as the totalitarian other in the early Cold War 59 2.1 Introduction: the Cold War 59 2.2 The totalitarian other 60 2.3 Scholarship and politics: writing on Stalinism in a Cold War context 65 2.4 The Stalinist totalitarian other in Western historiography 73 2.5 Conclusion 81 3. The God that Failed: Khrushchev’s ‘secret speech’ and British Communist historiography of Stalin and Stalinism 84 3.1 British Communists in context: the rise and fall of the CPGB 84 3.2 The secret speech 86 3.3 Before 1956: Stalin and Stalinism through British Communist eyes 87 3.4 ‘True democracy has been restored’: the CPGB responds to the 20th Congress 97 3.5 ‘To leave error unrefuted is to encourage intellectual immorality’: The Reasoner 100 3.6 Beyond 1956 107 3.7 Conclusion 109 iii 4. Morality and blame: the revisionist debates of the 1980s 112 4.1 Introduction: the rise of social history in the 1960s and 1970s 112 4.2 Revisionism and the ‘new cohort’ in the study of Stalinism 115 4.3 History with the politics left out? 121 4.4 Whose fault? Stalinism and the locus of blame 124 4.5 Blame and the moral dimension of the revisionist debates 127 4.6 Conclusion: the revisionist debates and Western attitudes towards 132 Stalin and Stalinism 5. Friction in the archives: revolutions and counter-revolutions in the post-91 historiography of Stalin and Stalinism 136 5.1 The ‘Archival Revolution’ 136 5.2 The conceptual counter-revolution and its critics 140 5.3 New era, old agendas? Soviet-era scholarship in a post-Soviet world 146 5.4 History with the politics left in: post-Soviet scholarship on Stalin and the Terror 154 5.5 Stalin and the West in the post-Soviet world: the modernity debate 161 5.6 Conclusion 168 6. Stalin in biographical writing 1932-2013: a case study of the historiography of the young Stalin 171 6.1 Introduction: official Soviet versions of Stalin’s youth published in the West 171 6.2 The two Sosos 177 6.3 Emigrés, exiles and socialists: the early works, 1932-1947 180 6.4 From the Cold War to Perestroika 189 6.5 The young Stalin in the post-Soviet era 196 6.6 Young Stalin and the West 200 6.7 Conclusion 201 Conclusion 204 Bibliography 220 iv Acknowledgements Over the course of this research project I have been fortunate enough to receive support, help and encouragement from many people along the way. First and foremost my biggest and most heartfelt thanks must go to my supervisors at Edinburgh, Dr Iain Lauchlan and Dr Luke March. I have been incredibly lucky to work with such knowledgeable scholars and to have benefited from a productive and happy working dynamic from the start. I am deeply grateful for all the time and energy they have put into their supervision of my PhD, and for the good humour and positivity that have characterised it. I could not have asked for better and I hope that we will continue to cross paths well beyond the end of this project. I am also grateful to Prof. Donald Bloxham, whose thoughts and advice during the writing up period informed the articulation of some of the key ideas of the thesis. More generally the School of History, Classics and Archaeology at Edinburgh has provided me in both my undergraduate and postgraduate studies with a vibrant and inspiring setting in which to pursue my historical interests. Special thanks to Dr Adam Budd for his enthusiasm and support for both my MSc and PhD research projects and to Niko Ovenden for being such a helpful and friendly source of contact and advice throughout my graduate studies. The National Library of Scotland has been my second home during the last 5 years and I would like to thank the librarians and curators there for all their help during this time. I am also grateful for the inclusivity and friendship of my contemporaries at CRCEES in Glasgow, who have been kind enough to include me in many academic and social events over the last few years. It has been a real pleasure to have such a great network of Russianists nearby and I hope this only marks the beginning of long and fruitful connections and friendships. Outside of the academic fold, I am forever indebted to my family and friends for their support – and patience – during the PhD. When my own has occasionally dipped, their enthusiasm for my pursuit of this project has kept me on track. I am especially grateful to my parents, Jean-Pierre Galy and Darya Hoare, for everything they have done for me, not only in the last four years but throughout my life. Oliver Hoare’s support has gone far beyond the avuncular call of duty and I have been deeply touched by his faith in my chosen path. Friends in London, and especially the old Edinburgh gang, have amazed me with their endless enthusiasm and support of my historical endeavour. I am particularly indebted to Olivia Banbury for being the rare kind of friend who embodies that time-honoured accolade ‘BFF’, to (Dr) Georgie Hallett for her humour-filled empathy with the highs and lows of a doctoral project, and to Ollie and Rosie Leach for just being brilliant. On the Scottish side the Gibson clan, and especially Iain and Rosalie, have provided constant and deeply appreciated encouragement. In Edinburgh special thanks are due to my fellow members of (the I like to think infamous) Book Club who are, as a group and individually, a v great source of friendship, silliness and bad fiction – the perfect antidote to academic work. It is impossible to adequately thank Jonathan Gibson, my other half, here.