Talk:Christopher Hill (historian)

discussion of the article

Surely Hill left the CP in 1956 for the reason E. P. Thompson and many many others did - Kruschov's revelations of Stalin's crimes, and the aftermath of the Red Army action in Hungary. Linuxlad

I also agree, he left the CP due to the atrocities committed by Stalin...72.128.207.39 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems bizarre to call Hill 'middle-class' - I don't think this category means a great deal in marxist terms. BP

the sentence with 'two tutors at Balliol heard about his ability' - which ability do you mean? 134.34.5.195 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1. No, he left the CP precisely because the CP rejected the 'Minority Report' on 'Inner-party Democracy' of which Hill was one of the three authors. 2. This paragraph is pure opinion, is not sourced or referenced:

"However, the intellectual tide later turned in favour of the so-called revisionism, which rejected the analyses of Marxist and socialist historians of Hill's generation and advocated, as an alternative to them, more detailed study of the constitutional and political, cultural and intellectual history of the early to mid-17th centuries. Hill's later works showed that he continued to work within the parameters of his earlier preoccupations and consequently lost influence upon younger historians. Even so, he was prolific in his publications until the mid-1990s even if he no longer occupied the intellectual centre-stage."

Whose views are these? It also happens to be garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.221.35 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is of no importance. Do you have a Reliable Source that makes this claim? HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that he was a keen rugger player, perhaps a Blue? It would help to humanise him. Seadowns (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Marxist and history as seperate links or as a link to historical materialism?

Currently the phrase Marxist historian both link to different articles (Marxism and History respectively). Would it be better to link them to the article on Historical Materialism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.160.30 (talk • contribs) (16:30, 6 December 2007)

No, I think the links should be left as they are. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this be at Christopher Hill (historian)? He's never called by his first two given names. john k (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why

No reference to him being a soviet spy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.19.250 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No REFERENCE (RS - title and page number) for your claim? HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I edited it and received a snarky message from someone who is clearly ignorant of the facts - Christopher Hill was a known Soviet spy. This is fact, confirmed by both British and Russian sources. It is discussed at the link below and anyone with any knowledge of Soviet espionage in Britain is aware of the fact that Hill was a Soviet spy.

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/4/christopher-andrew-and-the-strange-case-of-roger-hollis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.183.253 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph removed.

This paragraph has been removed pending a citation and perhaps a re-write. Gordo (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

However, the intellectual tide later turned in favour of the so-called revisionism, which rejected the analyses of Marxist and socialist historians of Hill's generation and advocated, as an alternative to them, more detailed study of the constitutional and political, cultural and intellectual history of the early to mid-17th centuries. Hill's later works showed that he continued to work within the parameters of his earlier preoccupations and consequently lost influence upon younger historians. Even so, he was prolific in his publications until the mid-1990s even if he no longer occupied the intellectual centre-stage.

Paul Monk wrote this (and more) about Hill in his 2010 Quadrant article.

"Christopher Hill, the famous Marxist historian of the English Civil War and the Levellers of the seventeenth century, it turns out, was also a Soviet spy in the 1940s. When confronted with the evidence in his last years, he confessed but pleaded that the truth not be made public until after he had died. He had concealed his membership of the Communist Party in order to get jobs in military intelligence (1940–43) and the Foreign Office (1943–45), and there he worked for the Soviet Union." Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I don't have the time now to dig into this issue and try to verify the reliability of the evidence used to make this accusation. Since it is attributed, there is no problem with it remaining there. I just want to clarify, from my perspective, that I don't know what might have gone on during the WWII years. But I do know that after the end of the war, Professor Hill was always openly declared as a member of the Communist Party of the UK. He never made any secret of it while he was a member, and in later years he resigned his membership. That did not seem to have hindered his career in Balliol College at Cambridge much. He continued teaching and writing there until he retired, and his work on the history of the 17th century in the UK is still very much used and prized in the historical profession. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)