One would imagine that fights between Academics would remain in presenting facts, debating points, and asking questions. However there comes a time when Academics look more like commentators on a YouTube video than world renowned faculty, with years of training and research beneath their belts.

Let us look at The Great Historiography War of 1987. The scene? Russia. Stalin's Russia. The beligerents? ROBERT CONQUEST and JOHN ARCHIBALD GETTY III.

Robert Conquest heralding from Great Britain, educated at multiple Colleges and Ph.D from OXFORD. Writer of The Great Terror and The Harvest of Sorrow. Taught at Harvard University and Stanford University!

And in the other corner? J. ARCH GETTY! From the Great USA! Ph.D from Boston College, Professor at UCLA. Writer of Origin of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938.

The fight stated on the night of January 22nd 1987, in the London Review of Books. Getty swung with a review of The Harvest of Sorrow by Conquest. He derided the Authors use of figures and claimed that the man had certain biases. He went as far say that Conquest did not prove his main thesis well, that Stalin planned the genocide on the Ukrainian people!

The highlights:

"Second, Conquest has failed to establish a convincing motive for genocide.

.

"Maybe we do not need direct evidence for genocide, maybe a circumstantial case will do. Perhaps the famine was of the magnitude Conquest claims; maybe Stalin was insane"

Of course Conquest could not let this travesty occur! And issues a quick volley of attacks, on multiple fronts on May 7th, 1987.

"Getty belongs to a gaggle of ‘revisionists’ who have achieved, like David Irving in another sphere, a certain notoriety."

But then later, he reuses this statement to bring out a left hook!

"But I am wrong in comparing Getty to David Irving. Irving, though perverse and absurd in his conclusions, does not lack a certain ability to discover and present facts. Come to that, there are pro-Soviet, even pro-Stalin writers who are, at least in this sense, qualified scholars. Getty is not among them."

Getty, not being knocked down stood his ground and swung back on May 21st, 1987

"Conquest’s work belongs to the genre of the great 19th-century idealist historians who used personal accounts and literary sources to write about heroes and anti-heroes, good and bad. These are tales of evil and omnipotent princes, innocent populations, and happy kingdoms ravaged by inhuman conquerors. This accessible and pleasant format makes for good reading, but it does not facilitate careful understanding. Using stories as if they were documents, it paints the big picture without worrying about how well the pieces fit."

Going further he expresses a sadness.

"Finally, I am saddened and disappointed that Conquest has chosen to reduce a productive debate to the level of personal attack."

And then he goes for the throat in the last words of his response!

"For many reasons, I regret that, in Conquest’s eyes, my social-science training and approach disqualify me from the field as he understands it. But, after all, not everyone can be a poet."

There is two more comments following this, one by Conquest and then the last by Getty. Conquest's retort kind of fell flat, and maybe is why he did not follow up again:

"Getty asks if I think his training in social studies has had a bad effect. Yes. It (or something) has incapacitated him for the study of history, at any rate of Soviet history. As his letter shows, he still does not understand the nature of historical evidence."

Getty responded one last time, probably because the London Review was getting quite tired of the fighting. The last day of fighting was the 29th of October of 1987.

The full review and the subsequent comments can be found on The London Review of Books website here.

Curious as to what our academic flairs here think about authors from "outside" fields (sciences, literature, journalism, etc.) delving into the historians' craft and releasing works? Have there been any noteworthy hits and misses? Do their outside experiences and background contribute to historical study or on the whole detract from it?

Not too long ago, a colleague introduced me to Reinhart Koselleck and his idea of "Conceptual History." Have you come across his work? It struck me as a new spin on New Historicism, but perhaps with a special interest in semantics and the language of historiography. Anyways, I'd love to start a conversation about thoughts and responses to his work and what is brings to our study of history.

It's said that today there are more slaves in the world than at any other point in time, but the entire world population has increased a lot since the trans-atlantic slave trade. I'm wondering if the amount of people in slavery today, as a percent of the entire world population is actually lower than it was 200 or 300 years ago.

I've looked at www.slavevoyages.org but can't really find a solid answer for that, nor does Google give me anything.

**I don't know if this question should be here, or somewhere else. **

But, I guess it has to do with "Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application."

Professors, have you ever had any student seriously challenge (undergrad, graduate, or post-grad) or change your own personal beliefs? Did this have any implications on your research?

The rationale behind my question: I'm currently applying to be a PhD student, and am just curious of how give-and-take the student/supervisor relationship can be.

I know it's late, and it's not even Thursday in some parts of the world. Maybe someone will see it though!

I would like to start a thread on the historiographical disputes/debate/rivalry on the race of ancient Egyptians. I have read several sources pointing towards African, Arabic/Asiatic, and even Mediterranean (Greek) origins. I was wondering what you all thought on the subject and what types of sources you are pulling from.