FOR THE RECORD: Prof. von Hagen's letter to the editor of The New York Times (11/16/03)

THE 70th ANNIVERSARY OF THE FAMINE-GENOCIDE IN UKRAINE

FOR THE RECORD: Prof. von Hagen's letter to the editor of The New York Times

Below is the text of a letter to the editors of The New York Times sent on October 29 by Prof. Mark von Hagen of Columbia University. The letter was written in response to a news story (The New York Times, October 23) that quoted a letter to the Pulitzer Prize Board by Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

Dear Editors:

I write in response to the suggestion in the letter that [Arthur] Sulzberger Jr. sent to the Pulitzer Prize Committee that revoking Walter Duranty's 1932 prize was somehow equivalent to Stalin-era airbrushing. Although Mr. Sulzberger did not direct his comments at me, since my report did not include a recommendation about the prize (though the concluding sentences probably gave away my sentiments), I feel that I am now retroactively in the camp of virtual Stalinist airbrushers and compelled to reply.

As historians of the tragic Stalin period know well, nearly all those targeted for "airbrushing" were already murdered or languishing in the Gulag (or, in fortunate cases, forced into exile) after being accused on trumped up charges of espionage, treason, sabotage and other "crimes." After their arrests or exiles, the NKVD ordered a further "documentary execution" of these victims by directing libraries to expunge all mention of them in books and journals, to remove their books if they had written any, and to generally relegate these victims to the status of non-persons, a fate that persisted for many until the Gorbachev era.

Revoking Duranty's Pulitzer Prize hardly seems in the same universe as this practice. Duranty died a peaceful death at home, not prosecuted for any crimes, nor having suffered any jail sentence. Moreover, his articles will remain, I presume, available in the archives of The New York Times and his books on the shelves of any major library. He will not be relegated to the status of non-person.

Finally, whereas, the purpose of the airbrushing was to suppress the truth about what was happening under Stalin, my intention in speaking in favor of revoking Duranty's prize is quite the opposite, to bring greater awareness to the standards of reporting and the potential long-term damage that Duranty's reporting did for our understanding of the Soviet Union.

In the end, if I were a holder, current or future, of the Pulitzer Prize, I would think I would rather not be in the company of a journalist whose own NYT colleagues acknowledge was one of the worst reporters they ever published, than to be in his company.

Mark von Hagen
Professor of History
Columbia University

| Home Page |