Talk:1977 Moscow bombings

Talk:1977 Moscow bombings/Archive

A doubtful source

A significant part of text was based on the following source: [1] This is a Russian language newspaper "Commune (socialism) at Volga"(Газета "Волжская Коммуна"), something I have never heard about. It is signed by Aleksey Stepanov (Алексей СТЕПАНОВ) - who is he?. I looked through a number of sources but did not find anything about the bomb at "Kursky Rail Terminal". This must be supported by better sources I think.Biophys (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is doubtful about the source? Is it that you have not heard of it? Or that you are claiming the cited information is not in the source? --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am telling this is not a reliable source per WP:RS. "Волжская Коммуна" - what a hell is this? What fact checking? Biophys (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a regional newspaper based in Samara founded in 1907. It is a member of the Journalists Union of Russia [2]. Just because you have never heard of it, doesn't mean it is not a reliable source. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I am still not convinced if this provincial Russian newspaper (as you say) is a reliable source. Second, I deleted only statements that are not supported by other sources. Extraordinary claims must be supported by multiple RS.Biophys (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to partially agree with Biophys here. Regardless of the reliability of the source, it's a fairly controversial and extraordinary claim which surely requires more sources Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory?

The only doubtful thing here is dissemination of conspiracy theories having no proof whatsoever. Even 9/11 "Jews did it" or "fake Moon landing" fans have more "proofs" to support their fantastic claims. Here we have just a bunch of opinions and no coherent "alternative story" why KGB would start blowing up bombs in Moscow, especially so close to 1980 Olympics. What motives could they have - to set up absolutely marginal group of anti-Semitic nut, that Zatykian was? Get real. M0RD00R (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I also partially agree with M0RD00R. As it stands the section is unsatisfactory, because it doesn't offer any explaination of why the KGB carried out the bombings. It says they were they were the first political executions after Stalin. Does this mean that the KGB decided to carry out the bombings so they could execute the Armenians? Seems quite a far fetched story. Did they use it as an excuse for a wider crackdown on Armenian nationalists? What? The article leads the reader (e.g. me) scratching their head as to what's supposed to have happened. For most people 'the KGB was evil so they did shit like this' is not a satisfactory answer. If no one has offered an explaination as to why they supposedly carried out the bombings, surely this is noted in sourced and should be mentioned in the article. P.S. Let's not forget there's a big difference between saying that the KGB got the wrong people and/or used it as an excuse to go after groups they didn't like and saying that they planned the bombings from the start. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course sources provide the motivation: the terrorism acts have been allegedly conducted by the KGB to justify crackdown on all Soviet dissidents (not only Armenians), but the campaign was scaled down because of very negative reaction at the West to declarations by Andrei Sakharov. This simply was not included yet.

Here the text about motivation from Russian wikipedia. This text was archived by M0RD00R today.

Многие диссиденты считали взрыв провокацией КГБ. Диссиденты, в частности Глеб Павловский, обращали внимание на появившиеся сразу же после взрыва в западной прессе утверждения, исходившие от просоветского журналиста Виктора Луи со ссылкой на официальные советские источники, о возможной причастности к взрыву диссидентов-правозащитников. По оценке А. Д. Сахарова, «корреспонденция Виктора Луи явно была пробным шаром, прощупыванием реакции. За ней, при отсутствии отпора, мог последовать удар по диссидентам. Силу его заранее предугадать было нельзя. Кроме того, нельзя было исключать, что сам взрыв был провокацией, быть может, имеющей, а, быть может, и не имеющей прямого отношения к инакомыслящим».

«Хроника текущих событий» отмечала, что сразу же после взрыва многие видные диссиденты были допрошены в связи с ним и от них требовали доказательств своей непричастности к взрыву; в «вопросниках», составленных следствием и направленных осужденным диссидентам, просматривалась попытка связать НОП с Хельсинкской группой[3][4].

11 января 1977 А.Сахаров узнал из радиопередачи о статье Виктора Луи. Встревоженный возможным обвинением диссидентов в терроризме, он на следующий день обнародовал «Обращение к мировой общественности», где сообщал все, что ему было известно об обстоятельствах взрыва и о статье Виктора Луи, напомнил о ненасильственных принципах диссидентов и о событиях, которые он расценивал как беззаконные действия властей, в частности убийствах ряда диссидентов, в которых подозревалось КГБ. В конце «Обращения» он писал:

"Я не могу избавиться от ощущения, что взрыв в московском метро и трагическая гибель людей — это новая и самая опасная за последние годы провокация репрессивных органов. Именно это ощущение и связанные с ним опасения, что эта провокация может привести к изменению всего внутреннего климата страны, явились побудительной причиной для написания этой статьи. Я был бы очень рад, если бы мои мысли оказались неверными. Во всяком случае, я хотел бы надеяться, что уголовные преступления репрессивных органов — это не государственная, санкционированная свыше новая политика подавления и дискредитации инакомыслящих, создания против них «атмосферы народного гнева», а пока только преступная авантюра определенных кругов репрессивных органов, не способных к честной борьбе идей и рвущихся к власти и влиянию. Я призываю мировую общественность потребовать гласного расследования причин взрыва в московском метро 8 января с привлечением к участию в следствии иностранных экспертов и юристов…".[5]

• M0RD00R, please do not pretend that you did not read Russian text and do not archive it before the end of discussion.Biophys (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

HTML protocol does wonders nowadays. One puts a link, people click on the link, and voilà! everybody can read it. Really there is no point of going around and copy pasting almost entire article in Russian language, which is of no use for most users at English Wikipedia anyway. Secondly still I ask what is the evidence? Thirdly, KGB needed no pretext for crackdown on any dissident, with all the power it had. Especially on insignificant extremists like Zatikyan. Mental institution, prison, accident, death of natural causes, you name it, are simply more effective and less trouble causing methods. Instead of endless and meaningless discussions around theories that have no proof whatsoever it would be more efficient to place video file here and let Zatikyan speak for himself. Too bad that the footage from Zatikyan's trial is not so widely publicized and probably not PD. The rant he gave was truly The Mother of All Rants - all that classy stuff about the k---s running Russian Empire etc. etc. I have never seen anything coming even close to its epic proportions. So, advocating cases like Zatikyan, really casts a shadow in the direction opposite to the intended. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You just said: "KGB ... with all the power it had". That's right, KGB controlled everything, which was not difficult with the Soviet system of internal passports and at least 11 million of informers in the country. All entrances to every Moscow metro stations were under constant video surveillance (the cameras were also used during training of GRU agents). 25th of October Street was also guarded because it led directly to the hidden CPSU headquarters. Every dissident who spent time for "anti-Soviet activities" (like Zatikyan) was under constant surveillance. That is why there was no terrorism acts in Moscow for maybe 30 years. Such acts simply could not happen without KGB involvement. Three simultaneous bombings in the most guarded places of Moscow! Why they needed the provocation? Because it was not enough to eliminate their dissident "enemy" physically. It was important to discredit the dissident movement ideologically (do you know about "ideological subversion", the favorite expression of Andropov?). The smartest thing Soviet dissidents did was their declaration of non-violence and quest for human rights. By proving them to be the terrorists, KGB could discredit them as criminals in the eyes of the West. And that was precisely what KGB agent Lui did in his publication. That is why Sakharov reacted with his letter.Biophys (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And the evidence is? That's right - none. Statements like "Such acts simply could not happen without KGB involvement" really does not prove anything. No terrorism acts in Moscow for maybe 30 years? Please. There were suicide bombings inside Lenin's mausoleum before that. Because it was not enough to eliminate their dissident "enemy" physically? Some consistency please. In article you quote Sakharov blaming KGB for killing Konstantin Bogatyrev and Evgeni Brunov. So which is? On one hand, according to the dissidents, KGB is running around killing people like there is no tomorrow, but when it comes to Zatikyan "Sorry, no can do, need to blow up Metro, to get him"? Simply ludicrous. M0RD00R (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Major opinions

I see two problems in the article:

1. Too much opinions are presented in the first section. Actually there are two types of opinions:1. About the investigation results - presented by the official version. 2. About the secrecy of the investigation and the trial - presented by Moscow Helsinki group statement. Nekrich's opinion is about investigation itself but he didn't conduct independent investigation so he is not RS. All he wrote in his book was about witnesses who confirmed terrorists' alibi. We can mention this information later but according to WP:WEIGHT we should leave only the major opinions summarizing the article. They are the official version and Moscow Helsinki Group statement which represents most of the dissidents. It also represents Sakharov's opinion about the case (see p.2)

2. Sakharov's position is not as simple as it is described in the article. This is the quotation from his memoires where he describes his position as "indefenite":

Известные мне инакомыслящие очень по-разному относятся к делу Затикяна, Багдасаряна и Степаняна. Некоторые убеждены, что все дело – сплошная фальсификация КГБ: первоначально – с целью расправы над всеми инакомыслящими или с какой-то иной провокационной целью; потом, когда вышла осечка, – с целью расправы над НОП. Сторонники этой теории считают, что все вещественные доказательства сфабрикованы КГБ, что Багдасарян и Степанян сотрудничали с КГБ либо только на стадии следствия, либо даже на стадии осуществления преступления, что им было обещано сохранить жизнь и именно поэтому их фамилии не упоминаются в печати. Возможно, что потом договоренность была нарушена той или иной стороной. Суда, в соответствии со свидетельством Степаняна, не было (поэтому никто не может назвать даты суда и не были приглашены родственники). Другие мои друзья считают, что Затикян и его товарищи – типичные националисты, подобно баскам, ИРА и т. п., и что нет ничего неожиданного в том, что кто-то в СССР стал террористом. Вина обвиняемых неопровержимо доказана, отсутствие гласности – в традиции политических процессов в СССР, а в данном случае КГБ мог опасаться вызвать цепную реакцию терроризма. Что касается меня, то я вижу слабые места в обеих крайних позициях. Моя позиция – промежуточная, а точней – неопределенная. Я по-прежнему считаю правильным свое письмо Брежневу, так как считаю, что без подлинной гласности подобное дело не может быть объективно рассмотрено, тем более что альтернативным обвинителем является КГБ.

3. I see no need to remove Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Armenian militant groups since the official version attributes the terrorist attack to an Armenian militant group. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum, I would agree with your first point, but with some very important comments: Moscow Helsinki Group is just a group, it never represents all the people (dissidents), who questioned the trial. If you read the source [6], you will see, how Sakharov's opinion was important. After he stated his opinion, a state-organized campaign started against him. It was an important and long process, which shows that a)Sakharov who was awarded Nobel Peace Prize few years before, was very active in questioning the results of trial and calling Soviet authorities to not execute (kill) people after a Secret trial which could be falsified. b) that the Soviet KGB organized unofficial campaign against Sakharov who just defended basic human rights of open trial, c) many independent human rights activists (not only HG or NUP) supported Sakharov. So this is too much important thing for understanding of Soviet realities and of what you call official version (the parralels are with Burning of the Reichstag [7], not with September 11, as you claim!). When you cite that Sakharovs view is indefinite, yes, but related to what? read the text carefully! He mentiones 2 different opinions of dissidents and then states that related to their views his view is indefinite, as he never discusses if Armenian group was guilty or not, he questiones the so-called "trial" itself. He calls Zatikians execution a killing not because he sure Zatikian was not guilty, but because the trial was possiblly falsified and not objective (= Zatikian was executed but noone except Soviet leadership knows if he was quilty or not). And as Soviet union wasnt a democratic state, its official version is nothing more than the official version of the Burning of the Reichstag. FYI Wiki is based on ideas of democracy and pluralism which means that dubious decision of USSR or North Korean secret trials are not acceptible and obviously objective. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt the fact that the investigation and the trial were not public. However this fact doesn't mean that the investigation's results were wrong. And Sakharov didn't say anything about the results. His concerns were about the way how the trial was conducted. But even if he said anything about the investigation itself he wouldn't become an RS in this question as he had not investigated the case. The only thing he could be RS at is relationships between Soviet authorities and dissidents. However I did not remove Sakharov's opinion from the article and added some information about it from the source. You didn't explain why you had removed it. You also didn't explain removal of the Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Armenian militant groups and didn't explain putting Nekrich's opinion at the beginning of the article. P.S. I see no parallels with Burning of the Reichstag as this is just your own hypothesis without any evidence. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum, once again and for the last time! Before discussing anything pls carefully read the sources provided to not look like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you read the source, you will see answers to your questions. Parralels with Burning of the Reichstag is not my hypothesis, but citiation from "Poiski" journal's article (POISKI was another dissident circle [8] questioning the trial). Obviously if a trial is not public the results can not be objective - thats what say Sakharov and others. You seems disagree with the practics of international jurisdiction. In the text I cited sources, you're trying to delete sourced info and add your OR! If you have other sources doubting my citations, pls cite. If no, than lets stop discussing your personal views. Andranikpasha (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again I ask you to explain your edits (unfortunately the sources you are talking about cannot explain your edits):

1. Why did you put Nekrich's opinion at the beginning of the article?
2. Why did you remove information from Sakharov's memoires?
3. Why did you remove Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Armenian militant groups?
4. Why do you think Sakharov is RS to talk about this terrorist act? --Quantum666 (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way dissidents are primary sources and they had their own goals in their struggle against Soviet authorities so the are not neutral when talking about Soviets' actions. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Heller and Nekrich published a reliable and important source on Russian History, it is not just their opinion as the text shows. But as other sources like Berman, Memorial Site and Sakharov ("Затикян не находился в Москве в момент взрыва в метро – много свидетелей могут подтвердить его алиби; следствие не проявило никакой заинтересованности в выяснении этого и других важных обстоятельств" [9]) also support this, so we must just write "Many sources" in place of "Some dissidents".
• 2. Sorry, you just reverted sourced info and added yours. Off course all the additional sourced info will be added.
• 3. I removed the category, as the guilt of Armenians is questioned by many sources, included all the democratic ones. Their guilt is not something obvious. And also read WP:WTA for the right naming of the cat.
• 4. Sakharov was one of the most reliable and respected human rights activists of 20th century, he collected information on this case, met both relatives of arrested Armenians and KGB agents, was active in calling for an open trial for a long period, during which he checked again and again that his letter to Brezhnev was justified. If a Nobel Peace Prize laureate is not a RS for you on human rights affairs, then who? It is fanny to discuss Sakharov as a "not neutral person". Wiki is not a personal site, if you believe that the most reliable courts were in USSR, Nazi Germany and North Korea, maybe to do something more useful than useless OR's here.
• And another RS supporting what I represented earlier: "Who actually caused the explosion has never been determined conclusively. Three Armenian nationalists - Stepan Zatikian, Akop Stepanian and Zaven Bagdasarian - were arrested shortly after the incident and, in January 1979, tried, convicted of the crime, and sentenced to death. Sakharov and others protested the convictions as well as the sentences, which were carried out shortly after the verdict. Although Sakharov believed the explosion was a KGB provocation, he had no proof of this, and in his memoirs he acknowledges that only in an impartial court of law could the matter be resolved. But he was convinced the three Armenians were innocent of any wrongdoing, and in his memoirs notes that the evidence the government cited as proof of Zatikian's involvement was particularly dubious. Some dissidents, however, thought the three men, given their nationalism, could easily have set the explosion, while others were inclined to give credence to a rumor circulationg in Moscow shortly afterward that it was the work of Russian workers protesting food shortages. Sakharov, Memoirs, 490-92; Alexeyeva, Soviet Dissent, 129". (source: Meeting the demands of reason: the life and thought of Andrei Sakharov, by Jay Bergman, Cornell University Press, 2009, ISBN 0801447313, p. 256) We need to incorporate this into the article too. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Let’s clarify the «alibi» question. Here are the sources:

• 1)Nekrich and Heller [10]: “the suspects’ alibi was confirmed by many witnesses”
• 2)Sakharov’s letter to Brezhnev [11]:”Zatikyan was not in Moscow at the moment of the explosion in the subway – many witnesses can confirm his alibi”
• 3)Sakharov’s memoirs [12] where he talks only about Zatikyan’s alibi. He was told about the alibi by Yula Zaks. And he writes: then for me and for her it seemed to be very important that Zatikyan was in Yerevan at the moment of the explosion…( “тогда и ей, и мне это казалось решающе важным, – что Затикян в момент совершения взрыва находился в Ереване: этому множество свидетелей и документальные подтверждения, т. е. он имеет алиби.”) His letter (see p.2) was based on this belief. And the key word is “then”. Because later in the text we see description of his conversations with people pretending to have participated in the court: when he asked them about Zatikyan’s alibi he was told that Zatikyan was the organizer. And Sakharov writes: Before that we didn’t think about such possibility of participation (До этого я не учитывал такой возможности соучастия, так же как и Юла). As we see Sakharov’s opinion about Zatikyan’s alibi changed as organizers of crimes usually have alibi. It means that Zatikyan’s alibi doesn’t prove his innocence. The alibis of the other suspects are not mentioned by Sakharov.

I didn’t find any other source talking about the suspects’ alibi.

• Conclusion: At the moment I agree that Nekrich and Heller may be RS in history and their book is devoted to the History of Soviet Union. But talking about the crime they must have made mistake as this is the only source talking about the suspects’ alibi (I mean others are talking only about Zatikyan’s alibi who was the organizer of the terrorist act). Since the information about «suspects’ alibi» (not about Zatikyan’s alibi) is provided only by one source and the source doesn’t define who exactly had alibi it cannot be a major opinion to leave it at the beginning of the article. I suggest making a new section in the article about possible alibis of the suspects where this question will be clarified in details.

2. OK.

3. The category’s name is Terrorist attacks attributed to Armenian militant groups but not Terrorist attacks committed by Armenian militant groups. As I see it doesn’t violate WP:WTA. If you don’t agree please explain how exactly it violates the rule. And there are no «democratic» sources. For Wikipedia a source can be reliable or non-reliable.

4. And about Sakharov. Let’s see

• Sakharov was one of the most reliable and respected human rights activists of 20th century – I agree
• he collected information on this case – partly, only as much as he was able to (just talked to his dissident friends, read newspapers but didn’t conduct any investigation.
• met both relatives of arrested Armenians and KGB agents – he didn’t meet the relatives.
• was active in calling for an open trial for a long period – yes he was but not for a long period
• during which he checked again and again that his letter to Brezhnev was justified – he thought he was right to send the letter
• If a Nobel Peace Prize laureate is not a RS for you on human rights affairs, then who? – But he wasn’t a Nobel Peace Prize laureate in «investigation of terrorist acts», was he?
• It is fanny to discuss Sakharov as a "not neutral person" – you can laugh if you want but describing Sakharov’s attitude to the Soviet authorities you cannot say that he was neutral. Just read his memoirs and you will see his hatred. I do not condemn him for this: the soviet government did much against him and his friends to encourage his bad attitude.
• Conclusion: Sakharov was an internationally recognized human rights defender. Although he wasn’t a neutral party describing situation in USSR his opinion about human rights seems to be important for many neutral sources. So we can use it. But talking about the investigation itself Sakharov cannot be RS as he didn’t conduct any investigation, he only received information from other dissidents. Actually he confirms it in the memoirs describing his position about the case as indefinite. According to this "Andrei Sakharov supposed that the bombings might have been a provocation arranged by the KGB itself" is not a correct text. Firstly this Sakharov's suggestion (actually he talks about feelings) was made in a form of political statement. Talking about the statement we must take into consideration Sakharov's attitude to KGB and Sakharov's explanations about the reasons he made this statement for [13]...В нем нет прямого обвинения органов КГБ в организации взрыва в московском метро, но я высказываю определенные опасения (ощущения, как у меня написано). Я высказываю в нем также надежду, что это не было санкционированное свыше преступление. Но я сознаю острый характер моего заявления и не раскаиваюсь в нем. В острых ситуациях необходимы острые средства. Если в результате моего заявления будет проведено объективное расследование и найдены истинные виновники, а невинные не пострадают, если провокация против диссидентов не будет осуществлена, я буду чувствовать большое удовлетворение... (As I understand Sakharov's explanations this statement was made to prevent possible sanctions against dissidents.) Secondly this statement contradicts his memoirs where he described his position as "indefinite". --Quantum666 (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum, so except of your thoughts and own conclusions you have no sources to cite. Than sorry, lets not to waste time. If I had more time, I'll be interested to read your own conclusions and ratings of state security organs and HR activists. But this is not a personal page, if you have reliable sources, disputing my reliable sources and collected by them info, please cite, otherwise I see no reason for deletion of quotes from published RS's I represented (you see, everything is sourced, I never added my conclusions to Wiki like you're trying). If you have not such sources please dont waste time here we can just ask an uninvolved admin to make a comment. Once again thank you for your thoughts. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

PS - If you really beleave Sakharov is not neutral in this case, please notice here [14] I'd like to see if anyone will support you. But you will not do it, as you see how your pro-KGB pretensions are baseless. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. As you don't want to discuss the problems I revert to the original version and will make the next step in the dispute resolution. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you "have no time" to notice and editwarring is an easier way for you. I wrote to NPOV noticeboard. I'll also translate Sakharov's memoirs on these events to show how you're misinterpreting him. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, since Sakharov's position and the beginning's content are disputed I don't understand your edit. If you want to make changes concerning disputed points please discuss it here first to avoid edit warring. I am deleting the text you added but leaving the POV tag. I am waiting for your explanations about putting the tag. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're just vandalizing this article by your deletion of reliable sources and by systematic pov-pushing. So sorry its useless to continue any 'discussions' with you. I asked for an admin's opinion. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think using words like "vandalizing" will help you to prove anything. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sakharov's involvement and opinion: Sources

1. "Dissidents known to me had very much different concerns to the case of Zatikian, Bagdasaryan and Stepanyan. Some of them are convinced, that all the case is a continuous falsification by KGB: originally – with the objective of punishment of all dissidents or with any other provocative objective; then, when there was a misfire, – with objective of punishment of NUP (National United Party). Supporters of this theory consider, that all material evidences are forged by KGB, that Bagdasarian and Stepanyan cooperated with KGB at the stage of investigation, or even at the stage of realization of the crime, that it was promised to them to keep their lifes and for this reason their surnames are not mentioned in press. Probably then the arrangement has been broken by one of the sides. According to Stepanyan's testifications, there was not a trial (therefore noone can mark dates of trial and relatives have not been invited). Other my friends consider, that Zatikian and his comrades are typical nationalists, similarly to Basques, IRA etc., and there is nothing unexpected that someone in the USSR became a terrorist. The accused guilt is incontestably proved, absence of publicity is in tradition of political processes in the USSR, and in this case KGB could be afraid to cause chain reaction of terrorism. As to me I see weak points in both extreme positions. My position is intermediate, or more precise – uncertain. I still consider the letter to Brezhnev as proper, as I consider, that without original publicity similar cases cannot be objectively considered, especially as the alternative accuser is KGB." (Andrei Sakharov, Memoires (in Russian, Sakharov Archive online) [15] Andranikpasha (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

2. From the Sakharov's letter to Leonid Brezhnev: "There are strong reasons to afraid, that in this case a miscarriage of justice or deliberate falsification takes place. Zatikian was not in Moscow in the moment of explosion in the metro – many witnesses can confirm his alibi; investigation has not shown any interest in finding-out of this and other important circumstances. The trial (without any necessity) was completely closed and confidential, even relatives knew nothing about its carrying out. Such trial on which the principle of publicity is completely broken, cannot establish the truth..." Хорошо забытое старое (in Russian), Official site of "Memorial" [16] Andranikpasha (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

3. Sakharov's eхplanations about his statement concerning the explosions: "I refuse to sign this document. I should first clarify what you said about my last statement. There is no direct charge of the KGB in the bombing in the Moscow subway, but I am expressing some concerns (feelings as I have written). In the statement I have expressed the hope that the crime was not sanctioned by the government. But I am conscious of an acute nature of my statements and I do not regret it. Acute situations require sharp tools. If as a result of my statement an objective investigation is carried out and the culprits are found, and the innocent don’t suffer, if the provocation against the dissidents is not implemented, I will feel great satisfaction. I have now good reason to fear. This is a provocative article of Victor Louis in the London Evening News, that has not yet been retracted by the newspaper. This is questioning me about the location of persons whose innocence is clear for me at the moment of the explosion. That many killings in recent months in which we can assume part of KGB and which have not been investigated. I will mention two of them - the murder of poet Konstantin Bogatyrev and lawyer Eugene Brunow. You did not say anything about these killings, occupying an important place in my arguments." Official site of "Memorial" [17] --Quantum666 (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everything is right. Just one question, this quotation is broken, its starting with "I refuse to sign this document." Which document he refused to sign? Andranikpasha (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You know it very well. Should I translate it or will you do it? --Quantum666 (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I translated the first part of your quotation: "Gusev (vice-general attorney of USSR) has offered Sakharov to sign this Prevention: "Citizen A. Sakharov is warned that he has made obviously false slanderous application in which affirms that explosion in the Moscow metro is a provocation by the authorities which have been directed against so-called dissidents". Quantum666, yes, this quotation also shows your removal was baseless! How it supports your actions?? Andranikpasha (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

4. "I told on the phone to foreign correspondents and agencies about the letter to Brezhnev. After an hour or two phone calls started in our apartment. The callers usually told that they were present at the trial of terrorists, whom I advocate, and expressed their outrage about my position protecting the killers. The form in which it was said, was different in different calls: sometimes it was just regret about my ignorance and naivete, sometimes ironic, mock (psychologically very strange in this situation), and sometimes - an angry disturbance, threatening to kill me. I tried to ask the callers, pretending to have attended in the court, but most of the questions remained unanswered (for example, when was the court carried out, under whose chairmanship was it conducted).

– Why weren’t the relatives of defendants present at the trial ?

– To avoid any excesses by the relatives of the dead

– What is Zatikyan’s guilt? It is known that he was not in Moscow.

– He is the crime organizer

(Before that I haven’t considered such a possibility of complicity, as well as Yula.)" (Andrei Sakharov, Memoires (in Russian, Sakharov Archive online) [18] --Quantum666 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and how this supports your removal? Andranikpasha (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to continue discussion please go to the previous section. This section is for sources to be considered by an administrator without any comment. Please be patient. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://old.samara.ru/paper/41/5142/91314/
  • In 1977 Moscow bombings on 2011-05-25 04:45:40, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 1977 Moscow bombings on 2011-06-06 21:55:49, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling/Grammar Error

Under the section official investigation it says " this false trail was dropped by KGB operatives.".

I think the author meant to say trial instead of trail.

2.103.237.155 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Factual corrections

There was very little information about the bombings at the time (see Chronicle of Current Events, 44.15).

Victor Louis was quick to imply some connection to human rights activists (dissidents) in an article in the London Evening News on 10 January 1977. The actual toll of dead and injured was not released, however, until over two years later after the trial and execution of the three accused men (see Stepanov article in Volzhskaya kommuna).

The police do not even investigate run-of-the-mill murders in the USSR or today. That is the work of the Procurator's Office and in this case the KGB were in charge. John Crowfoot (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)