Robert Conquest’s The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Policies and the Ukrainian Famine, 1932-1933 (1986) and Applebaum’s Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine (2017)

You said:

was applebaum’s book on the holodomor much of an improvement on conquest’s book

ChatGPT said:

Applebaum’s Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine (2017) and Anne Applebaum’s earlier Gulag (2003) are both highly regarded works, but when it comes to the Holodomor specifically, many consider Applebaum’s book to be an important contribution to the understanding of the famine in Ukraine.

In terms of whether it’s an improvement on Robert Conquest’s The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Policies and the Ukrainian Famine, 1932-1933 (1986), there are several aspects to consider:

1. New Sources and Research

Applebaum’s book benefits from newer sources that were not available when Conquest wrote The Harvest of Sorrow. By the time Applebaum wrote Red Famine, archives in Ukraine and Russia were more accessible, and she had the opportunity to explore previously restricted materials. This allows her to provide a broader and more nuanced analysis.
Applebaum also integrates testimonies and first-person accounts more extensively, giving a human face to the political tragedy.

2. Historical Context and Political Analysis

While Conquest’s work was groundbreaking for its time and showed how the famine was a deliberate result of Stalin’s policies, it is sometimes criticized for lacking a broader political and social context. Applebaum’s Red Famine goes deeper into the intricacies of Stalin’s policies, the role of the Soviet system, and the international reaction to the famine.
Applebaum also includes discussions of the impact of the famine on the Soviet Union’s political landscape and its relationship with the rest of the world, including Western denial or ignorance of the crisis at the time.

3. Narrative and Emotional Depth

Applebaum’s Red Famine is generally considered more readable in terms of narrative style compared to Conquest, whose book is somewhat more academic and less focused on personal stories. Applebaum’s book, though still scholarly, engages with the emotional aspects of the famine more vividly, making it more accessible to a broader audience.

4. Criticism of Conquest’s Work

Despite the value of The Harvest of Sorrow, Conquest was sometimes criticized for underestimating or oversimplifying certain aspects of the famine. Some of his conclusions about the famine’s causes were seen as too firmly rooted in the idea of Stalin’s personal malevolence without a full understanding of the complexities of Soviet governance and bureaucratic actions.
Applebaum’s later analysis challenges some of those conclusions, adding layers of political dynamics, economic failure, and the role of Soviet bureaucracy that Conquest’s work doesn’t delve into as much.

5. Approach to Ukrainian Nationalism

Conquest’s work occasionally touches on the idea that the famine was part of Stalin’s broader effort to crush Ukrainian nationalism, though he acknowledges that the famine’s causes were rooted in broader Soviet policies. Applebaum, meanwhile, engages with the complexity of Ukrainian identity and its relationship to Soviet power, offering a more nuanced discussion about the role of Ukraine in the Soviet Union.

Conclusion

In short, Red Famine builds on Conquest’s work, providing a more comprehensive and nuanced examination of the Holodomor. It’s not necessarily a “better” book but rather an evolution of the historiography, benefiting from new sources and a broader context. For anyone deeply interested in the Holodomor, Applebaum’s work would likely complement Conquest’s, rather than completely replace it.