Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
It is, however, prevalent in academic studies of the former Soviet Union and Cold War, however
|
As someone interested in and researching that field, I can say that reading an account after account that could be summarized by saying "this sucked" gets tedious. It's an easy way to get lots of accepting nods, but it has been done for so many times that it's difficult to bring much new to it. Researcher after researcher has argued and proven that the first five year plan failed, the collectivization was a tragedy and the purges whimsical tyranny. In how many different ways it is necessary to say that?
The research these days may seem to be looking at the Soviet Union in a more positive light, because the focus is on subjects that do not necessarily need a "failed / succeeded" stamp on them. I, for example, studied the Soviet film culture in the 1930s for my seminar thesis and am continuing it on my master's thesis. I mentioned the current paradigms on the 1930s when necessary and compared my sources (the films) to the researched reality of the 1930s, but I had no reason to start repeating in detail what researchers far more experienced than me had already said. I could simply refer to any of them.
I haven't personally yet seen excesses in the papers I have read on the subject. They might exist, but at least in my material there haven't yet been any. Mostly the writers disagree on if, for example, the first five year plan failed completely or just partially. They do, however, say that the plan started the industrialization of the Soviet Union at heavy cost. All in all they seem neutral to me, but then again, I'm not researching that particular topic and haven't read the original sources myself.