Pokrovsky's rehabilitation
A reply to Bernard W. Eissenstat
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11601237 |
|---|---|
| Authors | George M Enteen, George Enteen (Pennsylvania State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1970 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 295-297 |
| Publication date | 1970-10-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Soviet Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0038-5859 |
| Publisher | Routledge (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09668137008410753 |
| OpenAlex | W1992580590 |
| Language | EN |
THERE are certain ambiguities, it seems, in my article, 'Soviet Historians Review Their Own Past: The Rehabilitation of M. N. Pokrovsky', that have led the reader to misunderstand my interpretation of the subject. Professor Eissenstat has understood me to view Pokrovsky's rehabilitation as the outcome of efforts by Soviet historians to appease their consciences. Furthermore, he suggested by inference that I do not consider 'the response of the party to new domestic and foreign conditions' to be among the causes of Pokrovsky's rehabilitation. Neither assertion renders my position accurately. I regret the misunderstanding. I ought now to state my position and report my findings in more general terms
Assertion · Conscience · Economics · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy · Library science · Linguistics · Political science · Position (finance · Regret · State (computer science · Subject (documents · Computer Science · Eastern European Communism and Reforms · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Rehabilitation · Soviet and Russian History
| Highly cited | No |
|---|