Talk:John Earl Haynes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida State University. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.		Start
	This article has been rated as a Mid priority article		Mid

To-do list for John Earl Haynes:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

[edit] Useful sources

I thought it might be useful to link to some of Hayne's more quotable articles:

1. Exchange with Arthur Herman and Venona book talk

On Joseph McCarthy, and what the Venona transcripts reveal about the CPUSA and Soviet spies.

2. Reflections on Ellen Schrecker and Maurice Isserman's essay, "The Right's Cold War Revision"

On the CPUSA, and the "basic divide" between "revisionist" historians of the Cold War and "traditionalist": the revisionists believe "that a left-wing tyranny is preferable to a right-wing democracy, that an anticapitalist dictatorship is morally worthier than a capitalist democracy".

Notes that neither the Journal of American History nor the American Historical Review had (have?) published a traditionalist article since 1972(!).

3. Response to Schrecker's Commentary on h-diplo

Responds to Ellen Schrecker's Comments on Haynes', "The Cold War Debate Continues". (I just removed from this article a malignantly selective quote from Schrecker's Comment.)

Cheers, CWC 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- sounds like quotable material. By the way, here is a review from the Journal of American History of one of the books by Haynes and Klehr. The review, by Joseph Siracusa (a professor at Griffith University, in Brisbane) is not very sympathetic—as one may expect, from the discussion in point 2 above—but lays out the basic premise of the book in a rather straightforward way, at least judging from the excerpt. (I actually looked at the full review, but it's only available through subscription.) Turgidson 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)