If Tom Nichols thinks that objecting to McCarthy-like slurs against colleagues is a “tiresome practice,” he does not understand the not-so-distant history of his own country ­ or of his own academic field.

Indeed, what does Nichols understand? If he thinks Yeltsin’s abrupt abolition of a vast state laden with nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction, done surreptitiously in a dark forest without any democratic procedure, broad consultation, or preparations for the aftermath, was not an “extreme” act, he does not understand the meaning of that word. If he thinks emphasizing the role played by Soviet elites in the Soviet breakup is a “conspiratorial” notion, he doesn’t understand that word ­ or a widely held explanation of 1991. If he thinks that feel-good, politically correct condemnations of “violent revolution” in 1917 and a “tyrannical experiment in Eurasia” constitute an alternative “interpretation” of the end of the Soviet Union, nor does he understand that important scholarly enterprise. If he thinks that scholars who ask why so many Russians today regret that event are expressing “nostalgia” for the Soviet era, he cannot possibly begin to understand what has happened there since 1991. And if he thinks that his allegations are based on a “reasonable” reading of my article in The Nation, December 25, 2006 (reprinted in JRL #279-2006), we may reasonably wonder if he understands how to read any sources.

Nichols ends this second misinterpretation of my views ­ his “impression” of them, he now says ­ with words that seem straightforward enough: “If I have somehow misinterpreted [Cohen] … I will apologize twice over.” Assuming he understands his own words, I accept the apology and consider the matter finished.