The Great Terror (1968) In 1968 Conquest published what became his best-known work, ''The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties'', the first comprehensive research of the
Great Purge, which took place in the Soviet Union between 1936 and 1938. Many reviewers at the time were not impressed by his way of writing about the Great Terror, which was in the tradition of "
great men who make history". The most important aspect of the book was that it widened the understanding of the purges beyond the previous narrow focus on the "
Moscow trials" of disgraced
Communist Party of the Soviet Union leaders such as
Nikolai Bukharin and
Grigory Zinoviev, who were executed shortly thereafter. The question of why these leaders had pleaded guilty and confessed to various crimes at the trials had become a topic of discussion for a number of
western writers, and helped inspire anti-Communist tracts such as
George Orwell's
Nineteen Eighty-Four and
Arthur Koestler's
Darkness at Noon. Conquest sharply criticized Western intellectuals such as
Beatrice and
Sidney Webb,
George Bernard Shaw,
Jean-Paul Sartre,
Walter Duranty,
Sir Bernard Pares,
Harold Laski,
D. N. Pritt,
Theodore Dreiser,
Bertolt Brecht,
Owen Lattimore, and
Romain Rolland, as well as American ambassador
Joseph Davies, accusing them of being dupes of Stalin and apologists of his regime. Conquest cites various comments made by them where, he argues, they were denying, excusing, or justifying various aspects of the purges. After the opening up of the
Soviet archives, detailed information was released that Conquest argued supported his conclusions. When Conquest's publisher asked him to expand and revise
The Great Terror, Conquest is famously said to have suggested the new version of the book be titled
I Told You So, You Fucking Fools. In fact, the mock title was jokingly proposed by Conquest's old friend, Sir
Kingsley Amis. The new version was published in 1990 as
The Great Terror: A Reassessment; . The American historian
J. Arch Getty disagreed, writing in 1993 that the archives did not support Conquest's casualty figures. In 1995, investigative journalist Paul Lashmar suggested that the reputation of prominent academics such as Robert Conquest was built upon work derived from material provided by the
IRD. According to
Denis Healey The Great Terror was an important influence, "but one which confirmed people in their views rather than converted them". In 2000,
Michael Ignatieff, whose family had emigrated from Russia as a result of the
Bolshevik Revolution, wrote "One of the few unalloyed pleasures of old age is living long enough to see yourself vindicated. Robert Conquest is currently enjoying this pleasure." Conservative historian
Paul Johnson, one of
Thatcher's closest advisers, described Conquest as "our greatest living historian". And, in the phrase of
Timothy Garton Ash, he was
Solzhenitsyn before Solzhenitsyn. praised Conquest's
The Great Terror "as a remarkable pioneer effort to assess the Stalin Terror". However he expressed the view that this work and others were now to be considered obsolete "simply because the archival sources are now available". As a result, he wrote, there was no need for "fragmentary sources" and "guesswork". "[W]hen better or more complete data are available, they must take the place of poor and incomplete ones." In 2002 Conquest replied to his
revisionist critics: ''"They're still talking absolute balls. In the academy, there remains a feeling of, "Don't let's be too rude to Stalin. He was a bad guy, yes, but the Americans were bad guys too, and so was the British Empire."''
The Harvest of Sorrow (1986) In 1986 Conquest published
The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, dealing with the collectivization of agriculture in
Ukraine and elsewhere in the USSR, under Stalin's direction in 1929–31, and the resulting famine, in which millions of peasants died due to
starvation,
deportation to
labor camps, and execution. In this book, Conquest supported the view that the famine was a planned act of genocide.
Stalin and the Kirov Murder (1989) For the
Trotskyists, Kirov's murder was the Stalinist equivalent of the
Reichstag fire, deliberately started by the Nazis to justify the arrest of German Communists. The Trotskyist-
Menshevik view became the dominant one among western historians, popularised in Robert Conquest's influential books. In
The Great Terror, Conquest already undermined the official Soviet story of conspiracy and treason. Conquest placed the murder in 1934 of the Leningrad party boss,
Sergei Kirov, one of Stalin's inner circle, as the key to the mechanism of terror. He returned to this in
Stalin and the Kirov Murder (1989), where he argued that Stalin not only sanctioned Kirov's assassination, but used it as a justification for the terror that culminated in 1937–38, though no evidence has been found to confirm Stalin's role in the murder. ==Poetry and literature==