Abstract
The purpose of the article is to reveal the contradictory historiographic reflections of the opponents of the famous American researcher of Stalinist political terror and the Holodomor Robert Conquest, subjective assessments and scientific criticism. The research methodology consists of the principle of historicism and an interdisciplinary approach, methods of comparative historiographical analysis of sources, as well as elements of the "theory of reflections". General scientific methods (deductions, inductions), concrete-historical (chronological, problem-thematic), textology and scientific biographical methods are used. The applied task of the article is to resolve the conflicting assessments of the role and place of the Ukrainian scientific community in America and Conquest personally in the study of the Holodomor, refuting the scientist's subjective criticism. The scientific novelty is due to the goal and task of the analytical article, the formulation of the problem in the context of historiographical reflection, that is, the identification of subjective criticism of the scientific work of the Conquest, especially its interpretation of the causes and consequences of the Holodomor. Western literature has many works, the authors of which expressed a critical attitude to the scientific-historical interpretation of the scientist's Soviet political system, Stalin's regime, and mass terror. Our task was to establish the signs of motivated criticism of key problems: the causes of Stalin's terror, the concept and phenomenon of famine-genocide, the historiographic origin of the term "terror by hunger." The subject focus, rather than a descriptive and bibliographic review of the Scientist's works, seemed more constructive to us. The Conclusions emphasize Conquest's significant contribution to the historiography of the Holodomor, the presence in its approaches of elements of self-reflection, a restrained and balanced assessment of the historical forms of genocide, the avoidance of any ideological dependence, and a tolerant attitude to other opinions. The opponents' arguments turned out to be unconvincing, sometimes subjective and biased. They related to specific historical facts and events that revealed the worldview and political preferences of the opponents themselves. Conquest recognized objective criticism, especially regarding the number of victims of Stalin's terror. His calculations were not "random", but academically weighted, based on official statistics, historical literature, memoirs, and Soviet periodicals. The publication of his works in Soviet scientific journalism magazines of the late 1980s meant "objective" recognition of his merits, refutation of "subjective" criticism and accusations of "falsification".