Abstract
REACTION TO THE RELEASE of archival materials has been mixed. Despite general euphoria about greater openness, there are those who consider that already accumulated knowledge of the past will not be greatly challenged. According to this circumspect view, scholarly grasp of detail may be improved, the 'feel' of a period may be heightened but in many instances what is already known (or thought to be known) is likely to be confirmed rather than proved in need of radical revision. Letters and documents previously categorised as sovershenno sekretno, such as minutes of the Politburo, Kalinin's papers, anonymous letters to Stalin or correspondence between newspaper editors and the NKVD, may be thrilling to read but are unlikely to result in fundamentally radical reassessments of the past. They may contribute to fuller pictures, fleshed out by new examples, but not necessarily prompt different accounts or reinterpretations. They may generate qualifications, not thorough reconsiderations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
