Activities and affiliations

Scholarship and theory 1934–

America's most prominent historian arguing the Second Republic's radicalization brought on the Spanish Civil War

The very expression 'historical memory' is an oxymoron, a fundamental contradiction in terms. Memory is intrinsically individual, subjective, and very frequently fallacious.

America's leading historian of modern Spain, Payne taught at the University of Wisconsin–Madison for 37 years and shaped the conservative interpretation of the Spanish Civil War through over twenty books on the Second Republic, Franco, and European fascism. His central thesis holds that the collapse of the Second Republic stemmed not from right-wing conspiracy but from the revolutionary radicalization of the Socialist-led left, reading the Civil War as a clash of revolution and counterrevolution. Since the 2000s, critics including Ángel Viñas, Helen Graham, and Paul Preston have charged his later work with excessive benevolence toward Francoism, yet Payne's revisionist framework remains an indispensable pole in Civil War historiography.

Scholarship and theory Affiliation unconfirmed 1934–2015 ○ Natural causes

The historian who called the conservative majority 'aggressively obedient'

27 May 1989, at the First Congress of People's Deputies, to the conservative deputies: "You here make up an aggressively obedient majority. … We are creating a Stalinist-Brezhnevite Supreme Soviet."

A historian who coined the phrase 'aggressively obedient majority' to describe the conservative bloc at the First Congress of People's Deputies in 1989. A scholar of the French Annales school, he led the de-Stalinization of Soviet historiography as rector of the Moscow State Institute of History and Archives (1986–1991) and served as co-chair of the Inter-Regional Deputies Group alongside Sakharov and Yeltsin, driving democratic reform. In 1991 he founded the Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH), carving an independent intellectual space out of a former Party school, and spent his final decades openly criticizing the authoritarian drift of both Yeltsin and Putin.

Scholarship and theory 1934–2023 ○ Natural causes

A liberal economist who helped design the transition from a planned to a market economy

In 1968, watching Soviet tanks crush the Prague Spring, Yasin later recalled: 'It all became clear to me in 1968.'

Yevgeny Yasin was an economist who developed reform proposals for moving the late Soviet planned economy toward a market economy. As a co-author in the Shatalin group’s 500 Days programme, he helped formulate a blueprint for rapid market transition, then worked in the reforming Russian state after the Soviet collapse. As Yeltsin’s economy minister, he represented the liberal reform line while confronting disputes over the transition’s social costs and the state’s capacity. He later shaped economic policy education and public debate through the Higher School of Economics and the Liberal Mission Foundation.

Scholarship and theory 1934–2026 ○ Natural causes

The revisionist historian who overturned the Cold War coup thesis with archival evidence

Rather, I would emphasize the party's internally relatively democratic, tolerant and decentralised structure and method of operation, as well as its responsiveness to the prevailing mass mood.

A leading American historian of the revisionist school on the Russian Revolution. One of the first Western researchers granted access to Soviet archives from the 1960s, his 1976 work The Bolsheviks Come to Power demonstrated empirically that the October Revolution was not a minority coup but was carried out with broad popular support for peace, land, and bread, directly challenging the Cold War coup thesis identified with Richard Pipes. His finding that the Bolshevik Party of 1917 was 'a relatively open, democratic, and decentralized organization' reshaped the paradigm of revolution studies, and he was respected for accepting conclusions contrary to his own political convictions on the strength of the archival record.

Scholarship and theory 1935–2010 ○ Died

The British economic historian whose archival work recast postwar European recovery and integration

He read the 1947 crisis as a dollar payments crisis rooted in the strength of Europe's investment and production boom. As noted in the body, this is a paraphrase, and it drew sharp dissent from scholars who held that the Marshall Plan was economically necessary.

Born in Stoke-on-Trent on 19 January 1935, the only child of a Post Office employee, he read history at University College London and took a first-class degree in 1956, then a PhD at the LSE in 1960 under W. N. Medlicott on the German armaments industry in the Second World War. After posts at Edinburgh, the University of East Anglia and Stanford, he was Professor of European Studies at UMIST (1971–1983), Professor at the European University Institute (1983–1986) and Professor of Economic History at the LSE (1986–1996). Appointed official historian at the Cabinet Office in 1993, he wrote the first volume of the official history, and was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1987. He taught again at the EUI from 1996 to 2002 and died on 28 September 2010, aged 75, after a three-year illness; he was buried in Highgate Cemetery.

Scholarship and theory 1936–

A popular historian who reconstructed Russia’s tragedies through archives and drama

In 1989 Radzinsky became the first in the USSR to publish Yakov Yurovsky's note and the executioners' testimony, letting them recount the murder of the imperial family second by second.

Edvard Radzinsky is a Russian historian, playwright, and broadcaster who brought the country’s history and tragic figures to a wide audience. Trained at the Moscow Archive Institute, he began in theatre before writing biographies of Nicholas II, Rasputin, Stalin, and other figures. In his 1997 Stalin biography, he used newly accessible records and testimony to argue that Beria may have poisoned Stalin, a claim that remains an interpretation in an unresolved debate rather than established fact. His vivid, psychological histories became widely read, while professional historians criticized aspects of his sourcing and interpretation.

Scholarship and theory 1936–

The historian whose archival discoveries rewrote the study of the Tito-Stalin split

When sources that had been 'absolutely inaccessible' before finally opened, he recalled that he, a historian, entered 'a completely new era', regretting only that it came only in his mid-fifties.

A Soviet and Russian historian specializing in modern Yugoslav history and Cold War international relations in Eastern Europe. From 1966 at the Institute of Slavic Studies, he was among the first to exploit newly opened Soviet archives in the late 1980s, unearthing records of Stalin's meetings with Yugoslav and Bulgarian communist leaders (1946–1948) that laid the documentary foundation for the post-Cold War reassessment of the Tito-Stalin split. His several hundred publications include the co-edited volume The Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 1944–1949 (1997) with Norman Naimark and the annotated Cominform conference minutes, earning him international recognition.

Scholarship and theory 1936–

A historian who opened the Cold War archives

In 1962, he left a Soviet cruise ship during a stop in Tunis and applied for a U.S. visa.

Vojtech Mastny was a Czech-American historian of the Cold War and Soviet foreign policy. Barred from the conventional educational path by his class background, he worked in factories and archives before emigrating to the United States in 1962, an experience that reinforced his attention to fragmentary evidence. He interpreted the Warsaw Pact not simply as a unified military alliance, but through the tension between a politically motivated bargaining instrument and a mechanism of Soviet discipline, testing both views against archival records. As coordinator of the Parallel History Project, he connected documents and testimony from the socialist military sphere to international scholarship.

Scholarship and theory 1937–

The economist who exposed Soviet growth statistics as an 84-fold exaggeration and recalculated the real record

"The resulting economic mechanism combined all the worst features of both command and market economies": his verdict on the 1965 reform.

He was an economist who began recalculating Soviet official statistics using independent methods in the 1970s, arriving at the explosive finding that national income had grown not by the official 84.4 times but by only 6.6 times between 1928 and 1985. His 1987 article 'The Crooked Figure,' co-authored with Vasily Selyunin in Novy Mir, caused a sensation across Soviet society. He went on to write a multi-volume Economic History of Russia in the Modern Era, offering a dispassionate analysis of the achievements and failures of the Soviet planned economy; of the 1965 Kosygin reform he delivered the verdict that it 'combined all the worst features of both command and market economies.'

Scholarship and theory 1937–2014 ○ Natural causes

An economist who carried price theory into the transition to a market economy

Through the 500 Days programme, he pushed his research on price formation toward a plan for transforming the Soviet economy into a market.

Nikolai Petrakov was a Soviet economist who used mathematical analysis to study price formation and the balancing of costs, output, and incomes in a planned economy. He pursued market mechanisms and price reform, and in 1990 joined Stanislav Shatalin and Grigory Yavlinsky as a co-author of the 500 Days programme. The programme sought to move the Soviet economy toward a market through privatization, price liberalization, and a transfer of authority to the republics, placing Petrakov’s research and policy work at the junction of economic modelling and urgent political choice. He later founded the Institute for Market Problems and led research on market transition and economic policy.

Scholarship and theory 1937–

A historian whose break with communism led to conservative anti-communism

Declassified Moscow archives prompted a new examination of the Soviet role in the Spanish Civil War.

Ronald Radosh is an American historian and writer who grew up in a Communist family and passed through the Communist Party USA and the New Left. Reexamining the Rosenberg case led him to revise his earlier belief in their innocence and consolidated his turn toward anti-communist conservatism. With Mary Habeck and Grigory Sevostianov, he edited Spain Betrayed, using Moscow archives to present a critical interpretation of Soviet policy and Comintern influence in the Spanish Civil War.

Scholarship and theory 1938–

The British political scientist who argued Gorbachev's individual leadership was the decisive factor in transforming the Soviet system

Only rarely does an individual leader make a fundamental difference. Gorbachev was such a leader.

Emeritus Professor of Politics at Oxford and a leading scholar of Soviet and Russian politics. In The Gorbachev Factor (1996), he established the 'individual leader' thesis against structural determinism, arguing that Gorbachev's personal convictions and political choices were the decisive force behind the transformation of the Soviet system and the end of the Cold War. The thesis became one pole of the subsequent historical debate and remains among the most influential interpretations of perestroika.

Scholarship and theory 1938–2020 ○ Natural causes

The Leningrad chemistry lecturer whose 'I Cannot Forsake My Principles' became the manifesto of anti-perestroika forces

"Our media are lying about Stalin now. They are blackening our history."

A Leningrad chemist and CPSU member who, on 13 March 1988, published 'I Cannot Forsake My Principles' in Sovetskaya Rossiya, a full-throated defense of Stalin and an attack on perestroika. The article, drafted with the backing of Central Committee secretary Yegor Ligachev, was denounced by Pravda as the 'manifesto of anti-perestroika forces' and became the shock that drove Gorbachev to radicalize political reform ahead of the 19th Party Conference. After 1991 she founded the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (VKPB) and served as its general secretary, but neither she nor her party ever gained significant traction in post-Soviet Russia.

Scholarship and theory 1938–2020 ○ Lung cancer

American Russia scholar who argued through Bukharin's biography that the Soviet Union had reformable alternatives and collapse was avoidable

"At each of the most fateful moments, the rise of Stalin, the fall of Khrushchev, the end of the Soviet Union, there was an alternative."

Stephen F. Cohen was the American Sovietologist who built the most sustained scholarly case against the inevitability of the Soviet collapse. His landmark 1973 biography Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution recast Nikolai Bukharin's program (gradual collectivization, continuation of the NEP, intra-party pluralism) as a viable alternative to Stalinism, challenging the totalitarian school's insistence that Leninism led inexorably to Stalin. Cohen championed Gorbachev's perestroika as proof that the system was reformable, helped rehabilitate Bukharin's memory in the USSR, and after 1991 condemned America's 'failed crusade' (the triumphalist treatment of post-Soviet Russia as a defeated power). In his final decade, vilified as pro-Putin, he argued that U.S. media coverage of Russia had become more ideological than during the Cold War, and remained the field's most stubborn contrarian.

Scholarship and theory 1938–2023 ○ Natural causes

A historian who reopened the question of responsibility in the Stalin era

His work returned the responsibility of perpetrators, obscured by the official memory of the Thaw, to the archives.

Yuri Zhukov was a Soviet and Russian historian who studied Stalin’s era and Soviet political history at the Institute of Russian History. Working with archival materials, he helped reopen debate over Nikita Khrushchev’s responsibility as an executor and political beneficiary of the Great Terror, including the circulation of a 1938 Ukrainian arrest request attributed to Khrushchev. At the same time, his ‘different Stalin’ interpretation minimized Stalin’s responsibility for mass repression and drew sharp criticism from historians, making his work a revealing case in the politics of post-Soviet historical memory.

Scholarship and theory 1939–

American sociologist who reopened the debate on the Cuban Revolution

In The Origins of the Cuban Revolution Reconsidered (2006) he cast the revolutionary leaders as autonomous actors pursuing their own ideological vision rather than a master plan, challenging the dominant reading.

Born in Marianao, Cuba, to Jewish immigrant parents from Poland. He joined the anti-Batista movement as a high school student, moved to the United States in 1958 and took his PhD in sociology at UC Berkeley in 1969. He taught at UCLA, SUNY-Old Westbury, Fairleigh Dickinson and Brooklyn College (CUNY), retiring in 2007, and has written on the Cuban Revolution, the Castro government, Soviet history and US politics from a left-wing, radical-democratic standpoint. No death record is confirmed.

Scholarship and theory 1940–

Political scientist whose analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis reshaped the study of foreign-policy decision-making

We now know things that Kennedy didn't know. The Soviet Union had deployed 100 tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba, and the local Soviet commander could have launched them without additional codes or commands from Moscow.

American political scientist whose 1971 book Essence of Decision revolutionized the study of foreign-policy decision-making by introducing three analytical models: rational actor, organizational process, and bureaucratic politics. As founding dean of the Harvard Kennedy School (1977–1989), he built it into a world-class public-policy institution, and as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, he led nuclear disarmament negotiations with former Soviet states, earning the Defense Department's highest civilian honor. His assessment that Kennedy believed the odds of nuclear war during the crisis were 'between 1 in 3 and even' became the empirical starting point for all subsequent scholarship on how close the world came to catastrophe.

Scholarship and theory 1940–

The historian who argued the USSR built nations, not destroyed them, the 'revenge of the past' thesis

In sixth grade I gave a report on how the Soviet Union had defeated fascism and built cities the size of San Francisco since the war. My teacher blanched. From that day until I graduated, I was known as Comrade Suny.

An Armenian-American historian who transformed the paradigm of Soviet nationalities studies. In his 1993 book The Revenge of the Past, he overturned the Cold War consensus that the Soviet system repressed and Russified nationalities, arguing instead that Soviet nationality policy, through territorial demarcation, language codification, and ethnic bureaucracies, institutionalized and built national identities, ultimately creating the very nations that would destroy the Union. This 'revenge of the past' thesis became the dominant paradigm in post-Soviet nationalities research. He is also noted for major studies of each South Caucasus nation and won the Deutscher Memorial Prize for his 2020 biography of Stalin.

Scholarship and theory 1940–

The Xinhua reporter who lost his father to the famine and, in Tombstone, documented 36 million Great Famine deaths

A Xinhua reporter who from the mid-1990s raided provincial archives to compile the first detailed account of the Great Famine, published in 2008 as Tombstone: 36 million dead.

From Hubei, he watched his adoptive father starve in the Great Leap famine of 1959 without knowing it was a nationwide disaster. As a Xinhua reporter he began in the 1990s to search archives and interview survivors across the country, and after more than a decade published Tombstone in Hong Kong in 2008. The book estimates about 36 million famine deaths in 1958–1962 and traces them to the communes, forced procurement and “anti-rightist” politics; it is banned on the mainland. His history of the Cultural Revolution, The World Turned Upside Down, followed in 2016. He was deputy publisher of the journal Yanhuang Chunqiu.

Scholarship and theory Affiliation unconfirmed 1941–2019 ○ Illness

The law professor who surrendered his Supreme Soviet seat to Yeltsin in a moment that captivated the nation

Years later Kazannik recalled his decision: "Five and a half million people voted for Yeltsin in Moscow, 1.7 million for me. I had not the slightest doubt that by any measure Yeltsin deserved the first seat in the Supreme Soviet."

Born into a large Ukrainian peasant family, Kazannik worked as a carpenter in Kazakhstan and served in the Soviet engineering corps before earning his law degree from Irkutsk State University; from 1975 he taught environmental and state law at Omsk State University. Elected a People's Deputy of the USSR in 1989, he became famous overnight on May 29 when, after Yeltsin failed to win a Supreme Soviet seat, Kazannik rose at the First Congress and surrendered his own seat to him. Appointed Prosecutor General of Russia by Yeltsin in October 1993, he resigned in February 1994 after refusing the president's demand to block the Duma's amnesty for the 1991 putschists and the October 1993 rebels, defending the constitution against the Kremlin. He later served as deputy governor of Omsk Oblast (1996–2003) and returned to teaching law until his death in 2019.

Scholarship and theory 1941–

An insider witness to the collapse of reform

He recalled that his task had “extended the history of the Soviet state by one day.”

Andrei Grachev was a specialist in international affairs and a journalist who worked on the international meaning and domestic politics of Soviet reform. After the August 1991 coup, he became Mikhail Gorbachev’s aide and final presidential press secretary, observing at close range both negotiations to preserve the Union and the disintegration of its state institutions. His memoirs and deposited personal papers document the tension between perestroika’s promise of democratic renewal and the acceleration of the Union’s collapse.

Scholarship and theory 1941–

The Spanish Civil War historian who demolished Francoist myths with archival evidence

There is not a single conservative or neo-Francoist historian who does not manipulate the evidence; what they sell are bold-faced lies.

A historian, economist and diplomat who has systematically dismantled Francoist historical narratives through archival research on the Spanish Civil War and the Franco regime. Beginning with his investigation of Nazi Germany's financing of Franco's rising while a graduate student in Bonn, he demolished the myth of the 'Moscow Gold' in 1976 and went on to show, in a four-volume Republic series, how arms embargoes and international diplomacy decided the war. When the Royal Academy of History published a national biographical dictionary in 2011 that failed even to call Franco a dictator, Viñas rallied thirty historians and produced a 976-page counter-dictionary, En el combate por la Historia (2012), a watershed in Spain's 'history wars'.

Scholarship and theory 1941–

The post-revisionist historian who, after the Soviet archives opened, argued Stalin bore primary responsibility for the Cold War

It took Stalin, responding predictably to his own authoritarian, paranoid, and narcissistic predisposition, to lock the chain of causation into place.

An American Cold War historian whose 1972 first book, The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, founded the post-revisionist school by arguing that neither superpower bore sole responsibility. After the Soviet archives opened in the 1990s, his 1997 We Now Know reversed course: using newly available documents, Gaddis contended that Stalin's personality and decisions were the decisive cause of the Cold War, a shift widely seen as a return to the orthodox interpretation. He won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for his authorized biography of George F. Kennan, and as Yale's Robert A. Lovett Professor was hailed by The New York Times as 'the dean of Cold War historians.' His intellectual arc from post-revisionism back toward orthodoxy is itself a map of how Cold War history has been rewritten as evidence has emerged.

Scholarship and theory 1941–

An economic historian who traced the bureaucracy of Soviet planning

In the final 1938 Politburo transcript Gregory unearthed, Stalin explained the purge: 'I explain it by the fact that we were engaged in great deeds.'

Paul R. Gregory is an American economic historian whose work examines the Russian and Soviet economies. Combining statistical analysis with interviews, he studied how Soviet bureaucracies and planners actually operated and helped preserve officials’ testimony through the Soviet Interview Project. His 2000 retrospective on the Soviet planned economy, co-authored with Yuri Olsevich, interpreted the Kosygin reform as an attempt to combine directive planning with profit incentives without resolving their institutional tension.