Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 12

Archives:

Thru Apr 2003 Thru Jul 2003 Dec 2003 to Nov 2004 Nov 2004 to Jan 2005 Feb 2005 to Jul 2005 Jul 2005 to Aug 2005 Sep 2005 to Dec 2005 Dec 2005 to Apr 2006 May 2006 to Jul 2006 Aug 2006 to Oct 2006 Oct 2006 to Dec 2006 Oct 2006 to Dec 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006 to June 2007

This is an archive of past discussions about Joseph Stalin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Removing archive sources.

User Lysy and User:Encyclopaedia Editing Dude recently removed from the article links to a reliable archival source related to deportations, i.e. the State Defense Committee Decree No. 5859ss. They placed links several BBC articles instead, which clearly do not meet the WP:RS criteria as well as neutrality policy. I tried to revert these edits, but had been blocked by a POV sysop.

My version: Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union. Over 1.5 million people were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. Separatism, resistance to Soviet rule and collaboration with the invading Germans were cited as the official reasons for the deportations. During the deportations of Crimean Tatars and other minorities from Crimea during the World War II, the property of the deported was mostly shipped to the new place of living with other property bought by the state. Each deported family was given a loan of about 50000 roubles for 7 years without charge for interest to startup in the new place State Defense Committee Decree No. 5859ss (International Committee for Crimea)Resolution of State Defence Committee №5859ss, May 14, 1944, Moscow, Kremlin [Russian State Archive of Social-Political History, ф.644, оп.1, д.252, л.142-144].

Their version: Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union. Over 1.5 million people were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. Separatism, resistance to Soviet rule and collaboration with the invading Germans were cited as the official reasons for the deportations. Deportees were forced to leave their property behind, many died or were executed on their way to deportation destinations. Those who survived were forced to work for free in the labour camps. Many of the deportees died of hunger or other deadly conditions. [1]

-- Nixer 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual, there is little if any basis above. There is no evidence that the deportees were executed. The assertion that the transferred population were placed in labour camps is completely false. They were merely transferred to Central Asia where they were to lead a normal life with the rest of the population. The archives presented by N.Bugai found that out of 225 thousand deported Crimeans, 194 thousand or 86% were found in their settlements in Central Asia in October 1946. Out of 93 thousand relocated Kalmyks, 87% were found in their settlements. Out of 92 thousand Turks, 92% were found. Out of 68 thousand Karachai, 88% were found. Out of 37 thousand Balkars, 89% were found. Those that died did not endure anything different from the rest of the Soviet population. Indeed, by around 1948 when the USSR started to recover, the death rate and birth rate for the Crimeans drastically dropped and increased respectively.

Furthermore, Alexander Statiev documents that over 10% of the Crimean Tatar population served in German units. Therefore, it was not fabricated that Crimeans collaborated with the Germans the way your POV injected paragraph insinuates.

Many of the deportees died of hunger or other deadly conditions.

The facts show that the overwhelming majority successfull made the trip to Central Asia. While some did die of poor conditions, keep in mind that the rest of the Soviet population endured the exact same in 1944-45. Overall, the population of USSR fell by well over 20 million between 1939-45.

Jacob Peters

As there are no objections in two weeks, it would be better probably to return the version with souces back.--Nixer 11:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I see more sources are needed indeed [2].//Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting archival sources.--Nixer 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may suggest - let's keep both sources. One gives 1.5 million, another 3.3 million - fine, let's say between 1.5 million (source1) to 3.3 million (source2), and so on. Problem solve, revert war ended.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The archival source does not say anything about numbers. It is just official order how the deportation should conduct. The 1,5 million figure is from the pre edit-war part of the subarticle.--Nixer 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So that's way you are deleting sources how it was in reality? //Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right Piotrus, and Hungarian Jews were supposed to go to farming camps etc. There are plenty of Nazi propaganda saying "how it was supposed to happen". Problem is it was not how it happened. Same lame denial can be seen here.//Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, in Nazi Germay they were supposed to go to death. Please stop inserting your propaganda and deleting archival souces. You will not succeed.--Nixer 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are typically not acceptable for an Encyclopedia. I have substantial doubt as to the reliability of documents produced by the USSR at that time, unless they are substantiated by Reliable Sources. Documents produced by the USSR at that time have been demonstrated to be innacurate. Additionally, Primary Source documents can be used only to make purely descriptive claims. I do not support their inclusion. JBKramer 18:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How an official order can be unreliable?--Nixer 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Orders written down in the USSR were not always the orders carried out. JBKramer 18:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not the excuse to remove the order from the relevant section. Seeng this order one can conclude what did Stalin ordered (which is important in an article about Stalin). We of course can add that some people contest that the deportations were conducted preciesly according the order.--Nixer 18:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question with no ill-will intended, and not as a personal attack, I swear? Are you a Stalinist? The questions you are asking appear to either be incredibly naieve or that of a believer. JBKramer 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Documents produced by the USSR at that time have been demonstrated to be innacurate.

There is a huge difference between previously classified archival documents and material officially disseminated to the public. You have failed to identify a motive as to why archival material would be falsified.

Jacob Peters

I need not identify a motive in this case. It falls apon the individual who wishes to include primary sources to find reliable secondary sources that support their assertions. JBKramer 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, its not article about deportations, its article about Stalin and we only need to give short overview of deportations not detailed explanation. So that how crimean tatars should had been deported officially is quite irrelevat as this article is not place for describing how one certain nation was deported. About 18 or so nations were deported, there is no reason why we should give so much attention to crimean tatars(or any other ethnic group).--Staberinde 07:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The document is not only related to Crimean Tatars.--Nixer 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Its mainly related only to crimean tatars. Practically all second paragraph should be deleted as it goes into details of deportations of certain nations, that clearly doesn't belong to the article which should be short overview.--Staberinde 18:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete other points of wiev saing the article is too long. If you want it to be short, please treat all POVs equally.--Nixer 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I treat all POVs equally, here is the paragraph i deleted: Declassified Soviet documents appear to state that the property of the deported Crimean Tatars and other minorities from Crimea during the World War II should be shipped to the new place and each deported family should be given a loan of about 5000 roubles for 7 years without charge for interest to start up in the new place ^[1]^[2]. J. Otto Pohl found that deportees were actually forced to leave their belongings behind, their property was confiscated and they have never received any compensation for it ^[3] and that the loans did not exist. Along with the deportation of Crimea Tatars, the Soviet government issued an order to deport Crimean Greeks, Armenians and Bulgarians ^[3]. Crimean Greeks were rounded up by the NKVD and put on overcrowded unhygienic trains for deportation; they lost their homes, their livestock, and most of their moveable property^[3]. Deportees were exiled to special settlements, where conditions weren't significantly different from the Gulag^[3]. Its quite clear that both points of view were treated equally in deletion[3].--Staberinde 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what left after the deletion? One point of view was deleted completely while the other remained in the article.--Nixer 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion was based not on POVs but on the fact that about 20 nations were deported and to the article which is meant to be short overview doesn't belong descriptions of separate deportations. In this article needs to be only general information not small details(both POVs were equal in front of deletion). Btw, i would say that paragraph what I deleted could be also called anti-Stalin. But what do you expect, its the deportations, they are generally one of the most condemmned of Stalin's actions.--Staberinde 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

History or Historiography?

This is a very fine line we are treading here. Are we arguing history or historiography? It is impossible (IMO) to seperate the two and come out with a complete understanding of an issue. For example, historian Eric Hobsbawm discusses ad length Soviet Communism, and in his work "The Age of Catastrophe," he mentions that "The years of 1942-45 were the only time when Stalin paused his terror." even though he is a believer in communism himself. The difficulty with history is facts and figures don't necessarily refelct the actuality of a situation. The historiography of the first world war is immense and leaves more than a few with divided opinions. Fritz Fischer can be drawn upon here, as he has been accused by several historians that he used citations as actual fact or took them out of context (Ritter, Jarausch on Fischer's thesis "Germany's War Aims in the First World War"). Thus not all citations are unequivocal in history. Another point is that it doesn't give the necessary scope to the issue. To touch upon the first world war again, the July crisis is listed as a simple, linear series of events that triggered the war. It focuses on what can be seen internally than externally. It disregards what can be seen as facts and possibilities (that Germany egged Austria-Hungary for war, that Bethmann-Hollweg took a calculated risk in war, that isolationism influenced German reactions to the arms race)

This is why I think it is important to attempt to come up with as close to a synthesis as possible regarding history, or cite what can be generally agreed upon by historians. In this case at the very least Stalin would be classified as Totalitarian. Merriam-Webster dictionary cites historiography as "the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods." [4]Therefore, although scholarly historiography can be seen as a point of view, it poses theses based on historical reference and attempts to factualize the less concrete examples of history. It is the problem that history is not always unequivocal, that we need to find organized and scholarly correlations between events, statistics, peoples etc.

Further, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary the definition of Encyclopedia is: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject" [5] thus isn't the point of an encyclopedia, in the context of history, to try and grasp all historiographical perspectives? Some see the interwar years as an attempt to stablilize europe. Others see it as "Thirty-One Years' War." Should we not give examples of both? Both which could be factually true in different contexts? Could this not extend to historical figures as well?

I'm just throwing ideas out there. 64.231.65.246 07:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Britannica

Britannica says Stalin was paranoid. Shell we add this into the article with a link to Britannica?--Nixer 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

likely vandalism or error

The article says Stalin attended Tilfis theological seminary, that is correct; However the article describes the school as a jesuit institute. Tilfis theological seminary is not Roman Catholic, it isa eastern orthodox; therfore the school is not Jesuit.

Historical Dispution

There are many things that historians argue over, but to tell the truth, no one can really be sure of anything in the past. And so long as there are still be around to argue theories and reject others, we will never be able to come to a universal conclusion on some issues. This may be one, because one cannot truly be sure of anything about a historical figure unless they have written a bibliography. Any information can be biased or incorrect, so unless you feel very strongly about something there shouldn't really be much arguement here. Maybe the small things, like with the jesuit school, but any major arguements are probably biased based on the person and not the facts. One cannot deny that even the facts you know by heart can be twisted to your own bias. So anything that greatly challenges this article should not be mentioned, unless of course you have the undying urge to state it to the world. That's all I have to say. Oye vey, now I'm probably going to get hammered by all the historical freaks out there. >_<

How does "Stalin" translate into "Man of Steel"?

Well?

-G—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs) 26 November 2006

The phrase "Man of Steel" does not appear in the article, though reading it or searching for "steel" may be illuminating. - Banyan Tree 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for no help what so ever.

-G

"In 1913, he adopted the name Stalin, which is derived from the Russian stal’ (Russian: сталь) for "steel""

-Nentuaby 09:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but "in" doesn't mean man in russian, so i think then he got the nickname man of steel by his name and his way to rule Soviet

- Mr. Communist 22:35 1/1 -07

"Stalin" means "one who belongs to steel", "steel's", like, for example, "Petin stol" is "Petya's table" and "Mashin baraban" is "Masha's drum".

POV "Number of Victims"

Number of victims

Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range as high as 60 million.

This is untrue. They did not rely largely upon "anecdotal evidence". This is only what Solzhenitsyn did in order to dessiminate propganda. Other researchers like Frank Lorimer and Anderson & Silver in Slavic Review studied the Soviet census and concluded that there were 4 to 5 million deaths in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. It is a violation of NPOV policy to give emphasis to completely partisan commentators like Solzhenitsyn while neglecting the POV of professional demographers like Lorimer. http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1946/population.pdf

For example, the archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences)

This is factually incorrect. The archives record 800,000 death sentences. Other historians like A.Dugin said that of these, 640,000 were executed between 1921-1953.

under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}

This again is factually incorrect. Every work that has presented the Soviet archives showed that there were 1 million deaths in the GULAG.

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Secret_Police.pdf

Also, it is generally agreed that the data are incomplete, since some categories of victim were carelessly recorded by the Soviets - such as the victims of ethnic deportations, or of German population transfer in the aftermath of WWII.

This is a misrepresentation. Stephen Wheatcroft had in fact refuted the claims made by Robert Conquest that these data were incomplete and unreliable. The assertion that ethnic deportations were crelessly recorded is yet another factually incorrect statement. The archives presented by Polyan show a precise figure of deportees. Wheatcroft wrote this about the archives:

"Western hirostians who consider that all these data were falsified 60 years ago, and then held in secret to be produced in order to disinform them, appear to be suffering from an exaggeration of their own importance. When Gulag officials were pleading for more supplies they had no inecentive to underestimate the number of prisoners. When Gulag officials were planning they needed to know the real number of prisoners. Their health departments needed to know how many were dying. When MVD leaders were briefing Stalin in their top security "Obsobye papki" reports they had good reason to avoid the charge of misleading him. When two different generations of MVD officials were briefing Khrushchev on the iniquities of their predecessors, in their top security reports, Kruglov in 1954 and Shvernik in 1963, they similarly had more to lose than to gain by falifying the figures."

Russian writer Vadim Erlikman,^[4] for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

This is just the opinion of a single author. It is a violation of NPOV to give this much emphasis to one single person. It is not explained how he substantiates these allegations. His estimates of the executions and GULAG deaths are 2 to 5 times too high.

Some have also included the 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine.

The archives show that 2 million died in Ukraine, North Caucusus, and the Lower Volga. There is nothing to substantiate this claim that 6 to 8 million died from famine. Stephen Wheatcroft estimated 4 million dead in the famine:

Concerning the scale of the famine in 1932/33, we now have much better information on its chronology and regional coverage amongst the civilian registered population. The level of excess mortality regitered by the civilian population was in the order of 3 to 4 million. If we correct this for the non-civilian and non-registered population, the scale of excess mortality might well reach 4 to 5 million.

But again historians differ, this time as to whether or not the famine victims were purposive killings - as part of the campaign of repression against kulaks - or whether they were simply unintended victims of the struggle over forced collectivization.

This represents ignorance about Soviet history. When the famine took place, collectivization had already ended. 70% of all households in grain-producing regions were in collective farms by January 1932. Historians such as Stephen Wheatcroft and Mark Tauger have in fact argued that famine was caused by inevitable natural disasters:

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Natural%20Disaster%20and%20Human%20Actions.pdf

Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime.Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims.

This is a manifestation of original research. Never has an author put forth these estimations. Erlikman never discusses famine in his book.

Pioneering researcher Robert Conquest,^[5] meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.

Wheatcroft extensively discredited Conquest's claim that 12 million died in the Gulag. To call him a "pioneering researcher" is a violation of NPOV policy.

Jacob Peters

Your eye-watering attempt to justify all varieties of Stalin's butchery by replacing sources you don't like with those you do is not the way to go. Drop the original research and add what's left as a counter-point to the existing sourced text. - Merzbow 05:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Show a single instance where there was an attempt to justify this "butchery". Errors and other misinformation have been thoroughly elaborated above. It is an insult to academia to cite a commentator like Solzhenitsyn but to neglect the work of a professional demographer like Frank Lorimer. It is a lie to say that before the archives were opened scholars relied on anecdotal evidence. Frank Lorimer and others used painstaking calculations to reach their total of 4.8 million excess deaths between 1926-39.

It is also dishonest to say that scholars find the data represented in the declassified archives to be incomplete. As Wheatcroft showed in his refutation of Conquest's work, this is absolutley not the case and he dilligently explains why there would not have been attempts to maniupulate them. These archival figures have been accepted as reliable by the majority of scholars and are present in most post-1991 works on Russian history including those by Ronald Grigor Suny, Gregory Freeze, and others. The fact is that the archives show total excess deaths from famine and repression at about 4 to 5 million instead of this unsubstantiated gibberish of "15 to 17 million". Furthermore, it is a manifestation of original research to link Vadim Erlikman's work with famine as his book NEVER discusses famine. There also is not any material to substantiate why the archives are incomplete.

Wheatcroft's number has not been accepted "by the majority of scholars". See for example the Black Book of Communism or A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia.Ultramarine 09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Or this study showing 10 million deaths during just 10 years of his regime: [6]Ultramarine 09:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed in "Black Book of Communism" that famine resulted from grain collections even though the total amount of grains collected in 1932 was far lower than in 1931 or 1933. In the scholarly community, this work has been receptive to a high degree of criticism. Plus, an ideological driven attack against another ideology is not exactly a NPOV source. Another biased source is Yakovlev who was a distinctly anti-Soviet politician. A politician like he is not a scholar. Yakovlev claims that 35 million were killed yet he does not substantiate these claims.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Chapter%20for%20Roter%20Holocaust%20book%20b.pdf

Much of Rosefielde's claims have similarly been discredited. He lied that the 1937 census showed only 156 to 158 million even though it in fact showed 162 million. His work has also not gone without criticism. There was extensive refutation of his work by Wheatcroft.

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Secret_Police.pdf http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Comments_KEP_CNQ.pdf

This page misrepresents the discourse that has gone on about Soviet history. It is a lie to say that scholars relied mostly on anecdotal evidence. Frank Lorimer in 1944 and Anderson & Silver in Slavic Review in the 1980s put forth painstaking calculations that concluded 4 to 5 million excess deaths in the 1930s. Anecdotal evidence was only employed by polemicists like Solzhenitsyn and Conquest. It is also a lie to say that 800,000 were executed under Stalin. The historian A.Dugin in fact concluded that in the period 1921-53, 640,000 or so were executed. It is also a lie to state that 1.7 million died in the GULAG. The data put forth by Zemskov, Popov, Getty, and Wheatcroft show that fatalities in the GULAG amounted to 1 million. It is also a lie to say that 380,000 kulaks perished during resettlement. In fact, the majority of them died from famine in 1933 and years after having been relocated. Only a small minority actually died during the actual process of resettlement in 1930-31. It is also a total lie to say that scholars find the archival data to be incomplete. Stephen Wheatcroft and others have extensively explained why there would not be attempts to minimize the data. The fact Wheatcroft and others disagree specifically means that there is not a view held by a majority of scholars alleging the figures are incomplete. In fact, most recent works on Russia published since 1991 actually employ archival figures without disputing their reliability e.g Ronald Grigor Suny, Gregory Freeze and others. It is also a lie to state that deportations were "carelessly recorded" by the Soviet government. Pavel Polyan derives material from the archives thoroughly showing the policies of deportation: http://www.memo.ru/history/deport/

for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

In no way is it explained just how he substantiates his claim that deaths in the GULAG were 5 times higher than what the archives record. His figures are not shared by a wide portion of the scholarly community.

Some have also included the 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine .

This is not the estimate that scholars have reached. Wheatcroft wrote that 3 to 4 million died and with some adjustments, the death toll "might well reach 4 to 5 million". http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf

Ronald Grigor Suny in his history of the USSR wrote that 4 to 5 million died. The 6 to 8 million estimate is a considerable overestimate.

But again historians differ, this time as to whether or not the famine victims were purposive killings - as part of the campaign of repression against kulaks - or whether they were simply unintended victims of the struggle over forced collectivization.

That is incorrect and displays ignorance about discourse on the issue. Historians like Wheatcroft, Davies, and Tauger have in fact debated that famine resulted from natural disasters and drought contrary to claims by Conquest and others that it was "man-made".

Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime.Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims.

This is a manifestation of original research. Nowhere has a scholar put forth these estimates. Certainly Erlikman specifically does not discuss famine in his book. It is also not agreed that 4 million are attributed to repression. Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov in 1993 wrote that 2.3 million are attributable to repression. Wheatcroft wrote that 4 to 5 million died from famine.[7] The minimum figure is more in the neighborhood of 6 million.

I have given several sources by scholars giving other numbers than Wheatcroft. It it not the purpose of Wikipedia to decide who is right, only to report all views. Convince all scholars that your view is right, then you can state that it is the only corret one in Wikipedka.Ultramarine 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You state that Wikipedia is supposed to represent all views even though it has been elaborated numerous times that pre-archival section represents exclusively polemicists like Solzhenitsyn. There is the false claim that pre-archive writers relied only on anecdotal evidence. A polemicist like Solzhenitsyn is given space but professional demographers Lorimer, Anderson, and Silver are not. It is a blatant manifestation of original research and hence a breach in Wikipedia's policies with the passage "adding 6 million famine deaths to Erlikman's figures gives...". It is not elaborated why Erlikman is given special emphasis whereas others are omitted. Nor is it elaborated why his estimate of 5 million dead in labour camps is five times higher than the archival documents. It is false to claim that scholars generally agree that the archival materials are incomplete. There is an exaggerated insinuation that there is some sort of conesensus that the archival materials are flawed. This clearly is not the case as shown in countless works since 1991 pertaining to Russia. While the POV of those finding the archival materials incomplete is shown, the POV of those that feel them to be reliable e.g Wheatcroft are not.

There is the false, unsourced assertion that 1.7 million died in the GULAG. Every archival source published about it shows 1 million deaths. Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov in 1993 put deaths attributable to repression at around 2.5 million. You cite the dubious source of A.Yakovlev whose claim that 20 to 25 million were killed by Stalin is entirely unsourced. "The Black Book of Communism" similarly fails to substantiate its claims of 20 million killed. Its claim of 5 million dead in Ukraine from famine fails to conform to findings by archival researchers like Kulchitsky, Wheatcroft, and others.

All the sources I gave above have looked at the archival data and other sources. Why should the murderers document all of their crimes? Again, convince that academic community that you are right, then you can state that your view is the only correct one.Ultramarine 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the famine, your own favorite scholar Wheatcroft states 6 million deaths.[8] Ultramarine 10:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to give a single plausable argument. You behave more like a bot than as a serious contributor to discussion. Your attempts to maximize the scale of deaths in the GULAG and in famine comes across as extremely partisan. That you cite the debunked "Black Book of Communism" brings even more suspicion to your motives. Unless there can be proof of these "murders", anything else is guesswork and speculation. The fact is that the scholarly community has accepted the archival figures to be reliable contrary to the unsubstantiated editorializing in this article. You have additionally failed to respond each and every point above.

You are also lying about what Wheatcroft said about famine. He distinctly said the following:

The level of excess mortrality registered by the civilian population was in the order of 3 to 4 million. If we correct this for the non-civilian and non-registered population, the scale of mortality might well reach 4 to 5 million.[9]

Wheatcroft changed his mind in his later work, see the study above. Again, you should not try to convince me, but all academic scholars. When you have than that, come back. Until then all views should be presented as per NPOV.Ultramarine 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. As the study above shows, he had actually changed his mind from 3-4 million o 4-5 million. In the study you speak of, he put a figure of 4.6 million which conforms to the earlier 4 to 5 million estimate. The estimate of the book review you put forth is contradicted by another review showing "they estimate 4 to 6 million deaths" You said that all views should be represented even though you are intent on suppressing material that distinctly shows lower estimates. [10]

The book from 2004 is his latest view, not the paper from 1990. In the book he states that the best estimate of the number of famine deaths in 1932-1933 is 5.5 to 6.5 millions (p. 401).[11]Ultramarine 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. A second hand source does not qualify as a proper citation. Whereas I am using a direct source that is verifiable you are using a questionable summary from another author. On page 412, Wheatcroft wrote the following: "The number of excess deaths in 1932-33 (plus the excess deaths in Kazakhstan, which began a year earlier, and the deaths in the OGPU system) therefore amounted to some 4.6 million (2.9 + 0.3 + 1.4 million)

Eh, your are citing a document on a personal webpage. Either the document is fabricated or is violating copyright regarding the 1990 article. In either case, a dubious source. If you look at p. 401 of the 2004 book you will find that the best estimate is 6 million deaths.Ultramarine 09:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is yet another study from 2005 by Michael Ellman: "It should be noted that it would be a mistake simply to add this figure to the Davies & Wheatcroft estimate of 5.7 million famine deaths to arrive at a figure of 5.7 + 3=8.7 million ‘victims of famine and repression’. This would involve double counting the excess deaths in the OGPU system (approximately 300,000 according to Davies & Wheatcroft). Taking account of this, and also of the repression of non-peasants in this period, an estimate of ‘about eight and a half million’ victims of famine and repression in 1930 – 33 seems the best currently available."[12]Ultramarine 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, that "personal webpage" you are trying to dismiss is cited in the current version of the article. Let's not be hypocritical. "Soviet Studies" is not a dubious source but is in fact a major scholarly journal on the study of the USSR. If you look at page p.412 of Wheatcroft's book, he says that excess deaths amounted to 4.6 million. If anything, you are citing an amateur website that is a copyright violation of Europe-Asia Studies on the website of some deranged right-wing Zionist polemicist Paul Bogdanor who dessiminates the sort of propaganda suitable for political satire. This website distinctly says[13] : Welcome to the personal website of Paul Bogdanor

I can equally well cite "The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931 – 1934" EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 57, No. 6, September 2005, 823 – 841" Let's see. You insist that the only correct view which is accepted by all in academia is the one presented in an article from 1990. I have presented several recent scholarly articles and books (including one much more recent by the same author):

The Black Book of Communism (1999) [14]
Documented homicides and excess deaths: new insights into the scale of killing in the USSR during the 1930s. Rosefielde S. Communist Post-Communist Stud. (1997) Sep;30(3):321-31.[15]
The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia volume 5. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933. (2004) R.W. Davies and S.G. Wheatcroft.[16]
A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia (2004) [17]
"The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931 – 1934" EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 57, No. 6, September 2005, 823 – 841Michael Ellman[18]

Soviet archives were declassified in the late 1980s. Viktor Zemskov first presented figures on the Gulag in 1989 and were later published in articles by Getty, Wheatcroft, and others. Your attempt to show material published in 1990 as obsolete is unsuccessful.

"The Black Book of Communism" puts forth false claims about the famine as Mark Tauger has proved. It has no credibility.

You show work by Rosefielde which has extensively been challenged by Wheatcroft since the 1980s. Rosefielde lost credibility when the 1937 census showed 162 million population compared to his insistence that there were 156 or 157 million.

You show a book review of the work by Wheatcroft and Davies that merely summarizes what they've written. It is not a reliable source because of its failure to elaborate on their estimates.

Alexander Yakovlev was not a scholar. He was just a politician turned anti-Soviet quisling for Yeltsyn and the IMF. He claims 20-25 million were killed by Stalin but he fails to substantiate these claims in the form of documents.

All of these scholarly works have used the archives. Yakovlev is the person who has had the best access to all archives, many of which are still closed to other scholars. This means his statements cannot be verified until Putin opens them, but it is still a significant view published by Yale University Press. Rosefeld's workd is from 1997. You can read the for yourself the current view of Wheatcroft in the book, no need to read the book review. The same number by Wheatcroft is quoted by Ellman. Regarding the books, read the many positive reviews in the links above. But again, your opinions here on Wikpedia is not interesting. Publish in academic works like the above persons have, convince all scholars, and came back. Until then, all views should be presented, not only those from selected articles from the early 90s that support one view.Ultramarine 07:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Again, Yakovlev was not a scholar. He was just a staunchly anti-Soviet politician who baselessly claims in his book that Stalin killed 20 to 25 million people. He fails to verify these claims. Neither did he have the closest access to the archives as Zemskov and Popov circa 1989 and 1990 published material from archival sources that had just been declassified. Yakovlev fails to use these sources. Your sources "Black Book of Communism,Yakovlev,Pipes,and Rosefielde are just so laughably partisan that your input can't be taken seriously. Historians are supposed to examine and analyze why things occur. Your sources tell often fabricated and baseless tales of "5 million killed in Ukraine famine".

2.The relevant archives are not closed as you falsely insinuate. An extensive amount of archival concerning the demographics of the early 1930s, labour camps, deportees, and death sentences are available and have been published by numerous scholars since 1989 e.g Zemskov,Dugin,Polyan,Bugai,Kulchitsky, and others.

3. You make the lame attempt to try and dodge the discussion with this burreaucratic game of, "Go publish material and then convince us."

Again, your opinions here on Wikpedia is not interesting. Yes, that is Wikipedia policy. Publish in academic works like the above persons have, convince all scholars, and came back. Until then, all views should be presented, not only those from selected articles from the early 90s that support one view.Ultramarine 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Errors and POV Bias

PLEASE change his birthday, its wrong, his real birthday is January 2, 1880. Check this out please. Thanks.

known by his adopted name, Joseph Stalin (alternatively transliterated Josef Stalin), was the de facto leader of the Soviet Union from about 1928 until his death in 1953.

This is not only false but is also a manifestation of POV. In 1929, Alexei Rykov who was one of Stalin's rivals was still the prime minister. Bukharin and others remained in the Communist leadership until 1937-38. It is more appropriate to say he became de facto leader starting in 1939. However, as chairman of council of people's commissars in 1941, he was in a position of genuine leadership. Stalin had always been a high ranking leader of the Communist party which was the most popular group in Russia in late 1917. He became part of the Central Committee in 1907 and in 1919 became one of 6 or 7 original members of the Politbureau which became the highest decision-making body of the party. Stalin had always been one of the primary leaders of the party. Whereas 95% of Bolsheviks in 1918 had joined only in 1917, Stalin was around since 1898.

Stalin held the title of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922-1953) — a position originally without significant influence but which, through Stalin's ascendancy, became that of de facto party leader.

Even more significant is that Stalin was a member of the Politbureau since 1919 which was the highest decision-making body of the party. Stalin was one of several leading figures in the SU including Molotov, Kaganovich, Zhdanov, Beria, Vyshinsky, and others in the Politbureau.

Confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities under his orders contributed to a famine between 1932 and 1934, especially in the key agricultural regions of the Soviet Union, Ukraine (see Holodomor), Kazakhstan and North Caucasus that resulted in millions of deaths. Many peasants resisted collectivization and grain confiscations, but were repressed, most notably well-off peasants deemed "kulaks.

This is absolutely false. Scholars have found that the famine resulted not because of famine but because of the disastrous harvests of 1931 and 1932. It was found that natural disasters, rust, smut, and other factors caused for this significant decline in production. It is a fact that grain collections in 1932 were only 18 million tons compared to 22 million tons in 1931 and 1933. This can be found in works by Stephen Wheatcroft, Robert Davies, and Mark Tauger.

He turned the Soviet political police, the Cheka (later, the GPU and OGPU), into an arm of state-sanctioned murder

Ideologically-motivated editorializing like this above is not permissable in an encyclopedia. It would be equivalent to saying Truman, Kennedy, and Eisenhower turned the CIA into an arm of state-sanctioned murder.

No segment of society was left untouched during the purges.

This is the most ridiculous statement yet and is completely unsourced. Scholars have found that the purges primarily affected members of the party, burreaucracy, and upper echelons of the economy like factory managers. For example, some 80% of the Supreme Soviet was executed and the Hungarian, Polish, Finnish exiled communist parties were nearly wiped out. Targetting the minister of such and such branch does not necessarily mean that society as a whole was affected.

The controversial Black Book of Communism and other sources document that all grains were taken from areas that did not meet targets, including the next year's seed grain. It also claims that peasants were forced to remain in the starving areas, sales of train tickets were stopped, and the State Political Directorate set up barriers to prevent people from leaving the starving areas.

What the "Black of Communism" omits is that 60 million people were fed by the state's rationing system. More than 20 or so Politbreau and Sovnarkom decrees allocated food aid to famine stricken areas. This can be found in works by S.Wheatcroft, R.Davies, and Mark Tauger. Refer to the "Holodomor" page for an extensive description of what caused the famine. As is shown, grain collections had little to nothing to do with the famine.

Separatism, resistance to Soviet rule and collaboration with the invading Germans were cited as the official reasons for the deportations.

Not only were they cited as the official reasons, but they were the reasons in reality. Alexander Statiev found that 10% of Crimean Tatars served in German batallions. There was an anti-Soviet insurgency as well as disproportionately massive desertions amongst the Chechens.

Statiev wrote: "Collaboration with the invaders in Crimea spread wider than in any of the republics in the North Caucasus; in total, 20,000 persons enlisted in Tatar batallions and self-defense units."

Conscription to the Red Army and the wartime labor draft provoked an uprising in the mountain districts of Chechnya in October-November 1941. Police, with the use of air force among other means, suppressed about 800 rebels, but a small-scale insurgency continued.

When the authorities attempted to conscript Chechens into the army in the spring of 1942, the police reported that "all the male population fled to the mountains". Out of 14,000 Chechens liable for conscription, only 4395 were enlisted, and of those 2365 deserted. The government, despite all its efforts, could conscript only 17500 Checnes during the war, but many of them deserted. At one point, the number of deserters and draft-evaders among the recruits reached 13,000 men. From Nov. 1941 to June 1943, the 141st NKVD Security Regiment deployed in Chechnya killed 973 and captured 1167 bandits and arrested 1413 insurgents.

In all, 1966 guerillas and bandits were killed and 10269 were arrested

Therefore, it is not a fabrication that there was a degree of collaboration and treason amongst the deported groups. The view presented in the article is not shared by scholars.

Returning Soviet soldiers who had surrendered were viewed with suspicion and some were killed

This absurd allegation is refuted by historian Igor Pyhalov. Many of you seem to be oblivious to the name Andrey Vlasov.

http://www.thewalls.ru/truth/plen.htm

Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China, though receptive to minimal Soviet support

More like no Soviet support. Stalin had disavowed the Chinese Communists when he signed a friendship treaty with Chiang. The CCP thereafter became suspicious of Soviet intentions.

Your views are certainly minority views not held by pre-eminent historians. You may represent them in the article, emphasizing that they are minority views. You may not state them as facts. For example, here are quotes from lauded historian Alan Bullock's book "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives" (p. 259-260):

"Since the middle peasants, according to the official view, had already turned to the collectives, the time had come to deal finally with the kulaks, 'the accursed enemy of the collective farm movement.' On December 27 Stalin, in an address to Marxist students on the agrarian problem, in effect condemned to deportation and death several million men, women, and children with the dread formula:

'We have gone over from a policy of limiting the exploiting tendencies of the kulak to a policy of liquidating the kulak as a class. To take the offensive against the kulaks means to deal the kulak class such a blow that it will no longer rise to its feet. That's what we Bolsheviks call an offensive.'"

On the deportations of the people who you tar as German collaborators (p. 903):

"After the brief German occupation of the Caucasus was over... the entire population of five of the small highland peoples of the North Caucasus, as well as the Crimean Tatars - more than a million souls - (were deported) without notice or any opportunity to take their possessions. There were certainly collaborators among these peoples, but most of those had fled with the Germans. The majority of those left were old folk, women, and children; their men were away fighting at the front, where the Chechens and Ingushes alone produced thirty-six Heroes of the Soviet Union. Over 100,000 NKVD troops were employed to uproot these peoples."

On Stalin's murderous brutality toward returning soldiers, which you claim didn't happen (p. 905-906):

"The huge number of Russian troops taken prisoner in the first eighteen months of the war convinced Stalin that many of them must have been traitors who had deserted at the first opportunity. Any soldier who had been a prisoner was henceforth suspect... All such, whether generals, officers, or ordinary soldiers, were sent to special concentration camps where the NKVD investigated them... Twenty percent were sentenced to death or twenty-five years in camps; only 15 to 20 percent were allowed to return to their homes. The remainder were condemned to shorter sentences (five to ten years), to exile in Siberia, and forced labor - or were killed or died on the way home."

I could give you dozens of similar quotes from this book and from many other books that back up the scholarly consensus views on Stalin - from eminent professors and historians, not amateurs writing on Marxist web sites.

- Merzbow 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

On the deportations of the people who you tar as German collaborators

Please spare us of this bullshit. It is an established fact that 10% of the entire Crimean Tatar population collaborated with the Germans. By subtracting children, elderly, and women ineligible for combat, perhaps half of all Crimean men must have collaborated with the Germans. This can distinctly be found by a scholarly article published by Alexander Statiev: http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/kritika/v006/6.2statiev.html

without notice or any opportunity to take their possessions.

Absolutely false. a) The special settlers will be allowed to take with them personal items, clothing, household objects, dishes and utensils, and up to 500 kilograms of food per family.

http://www.iccrimea.org/surgun/sovietdecree5859ss.html

On Stalin's murderous brutality toward returning soldiers, which you claim didn't happen

Which did not happen on the scale that you suggest. The historian I.Pyhalov mostly refutes all the nonesensical propaganda that you've disseminated.

Let's sum up. From repatriated soldiers released during war, less than 10% had undergone reprisals. After the war - this was less than 15 %. And the majority "subjected to repression" quite deserved them. There were also victims innocently, but this was an exception to the rules.

Moreover, those subjected to repression were eventually released. http://www.thewalls.ru/truth/plen.htm

Your views are certainly minority views not held by pre-eminent historians. You may represent them in the article, emphasizing that they are minority views. You may not state them as facts.

Sorry, but you are not qualified to decide what view is held by a certain percentage of people. There is no way to measure that. The comparison of Hitler to an anti-racist and anti-capitalist Stalin in the title of your book is especially incendiary and cannot be taken into serious consideration. Plus, the works you have cited do not focus on any particular subject rendering them useless compared to scholarly articles that focus on a particular subject.

We have gone over from a policy of limiting the exploiting tendencies of the kulak to a policy of liquidating the kulak as a class. To take the offensive against the kulaks means to deal the kulak class such a blow that it will no longer rise to its feet.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding represented about this. The elimination of the kulaks as a class did not involve violence. 1.8 million of them were merely deported and put in other sectors of the economy such as timber. It was actually found that hundreds of thousands of them migrated i.e ran away when they reached their settlements. There is a total lack of evidence that there was an intent for these people to die. The whole purpose for their transfer was for them to work in other sectors of the economy. As as is shown by the archives, more people ran away than died. http://www.thewalls.ru/truth/kulak.htm

"Sorry, but you are not qualified to decide what view is held by a certain percentage of people. There is no way to measure that." And there you are wrong. We are not deciding what view is held by a 'certain percentage of people'. We are deciding what view is most widely help by pre-eminent scholars in the field, a much easier task. Alan Bullock is one of most widely-lauded, holding positions at Oxford and elsewhere for many years.

Bluntly, your sources are garbage. What degrees do they have? What prestigious universities do they hold professorships at? Please read up on Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a reliable source. I see what appears to be a Marxist apologetic web site in Russian (thewalls.ru), and one in English (marxists.org). The icccrimea.org letter is a primary source, and we are not allowed to analyze primary sources in Wikipedia articles - this is against the policy on original research. The only marginally reliable source you quote is the Statiev article, but the excerpt readable on the link does not seem to contradict anything in my Bullock quote. If the full article presents a differing conclusion, you may quote Statiev's opinion right next to Bullock's in the article. Go ahead. - Merzbow 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And please sign your talk page comments. - Merzbow 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Bullock is one of most widely-lauded, holding positions at Oxford and elsewhere for many years.

That is your opinion. You insistence on citing him is a manifestation of bias and a breach of NPOV policies. You insist on citing him only because he makes unsubstantiated, slanderous attacks against Stalin. What you call "Marxist apologetic" is the truth to some historians and what you regard as the "truth" is slanderous, fabricated garbage to others.

Bluntly, your sources are garbage.

It'd be nice if you would actually familiarize yourself with these sources. It is not up to you decide what site is "Marxist apologetic" as that constitutes a violation of NPOV policy. The fact is that Marxists.org derives material from Marxist writers and scholars who wrote about the Soviet Union like Frank Lorimer who published a demographic study for the League of Nations in circa 1946. It is frankly laughable for you to call Lorimer a "Marxist apologetic" as he was one of the most respected scholars in concern to Soviet demographics.[19] Your misplaced prejudice exposes your ridiculous POV antics.

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1946/population.pdf

In regard to Igor Pykhalov, he is a historian from St.Petersburg who published works in Russia's scholarly Specnaz Rossi journal. http://www.specnaz.ru/archive/10_2001/7.htm

The icccrimea.org letter is a primary source, and we are not allowed to analyze primary sources in Wikipedia articles - this is against the policy on original research.

Your attempt at creating arbitrary loopholes is truly ridiculous. The document speaks for itself and the Crimean website leaves for the reader to decipher what it says. It is not a manifestation of original research to quote text from a website that conducted separate research. In fact, the propagandistic Library of Congress web site is the original source of the document: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/l2tartar.html

The only marginally reliable source you quote is the Statiev article, but the excerpt readable on the link does not seem to contradict anything in my Bullock quote. If the full article presents a differing conclusion, you may quote Statiev's opinion right next to Bullock's in the article

You persist with your ignorance as to what is being discussed. Statiev's work is paraphrased in previous versions of the article that you are intent on obstructing. Frankly your anti-Soviet propaganda is just so disgustingly biased and one-sided that the version you endorse makes a mockery out of history which is supposed to be objective and full of critical thinking.

There are two more sources that can be salvaged from that original change (among the reams of throwaway material like I outlined above, and pure POV garbage like the sentence calling Fuchs a 'hero'). Regarding the material sourced from the Harrison book - you directly reproduce entire paragraphs from it without indicating that it's a quote (p. 188); this is borderline plagiarism. I added a short summary of it back in. Plus we shouldn't overwhelm this article with tables, this is about Stalin, there are entire sub-articles devoted to topics like Soviet industrialization. I also added a summary of the Davies&Wheatcroft view on collectivization and famine, along with a Bullock quote on the same.

Regarding icccrimea.org, again please read policy. Primary sources do not 'speak for themselves' on Wikipedia. You must quote a secondary source. I won't even respond to your laughable attack on Bullock. You can continue to believe what you want, but quotes from books written by eminent professors like Bullock are reliable, but references from Marxist websites, and websites in general (in history articles), are not. If you can't find a view stated in a book by a professor or in an article in a scholarly journal (in English or with a translation), that's a sign that particular view is not notable. - Merzbow 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And some of your recent statements above are bordering on personal attacks. - Merzbow 21:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

but references from Marxist websites

You still fail to understand. The material from the Marxist website is a PDF format of a demographic study by Frank Lorimer for the League of Nations. All scholars agree that it is a reliable source. [20]

A study from 1946 is not very interesting considering all the research and new data available after that time.

Ultramarine 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The methods of this study have been employed by most scholars on Soviet demography. This study is certainly superior to anecdotes written by Solzhenitsyn who was not trained in history and therefre unqualified to speak on the subject. Yet, his claim of "60 million dead" takes precedence over serious scholarly studies.

First, random PDFs hosted on amateur websites do not count as reliable sources, there is no guarantee they haven't been altered. You need to cite the original book or scholarly journal. Plus you contradict yourself... you praise all the new research supposedly being done with new data, but then praise this piece of research dating back to 1946. Anyways, if you can properly cite this publication, and if the author and publisher counts as a reliable source, then sure, it can be quoted in the article as one author's opinion, and it should be made clear it's from 1946 (an important fact in an area of history changing as quickly as this).

And the fact that the article still needs improvement in regards to proper sourcing does not give you carte blanche to insert more unreliable sources. By making one giant edit with a couple good sources, many bad sources, and plain nonsense (like the Fuchs sentence), you put the burden on everyone else to spent hours of our own time laboriously sifting the good from the bad. Even if you want to disagree with everything I've said so far, please just consider the suggestion to make controversial edits in small pieces over a number of days, watching for reactions on the talk page, instead of trying to force them in one giant lump. - Merzbow 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "random PDF" but is a copy of a scholarly demographic study for the Leage of Nations. You dismiss Marxists.org even though this web site is cited in hundreds of articles in this encyclopedia. Marxists.org is by far the most reliable source for studies on Marxist philosopers and authors. Marxists.org does not publish its own editorials or stories but instead displays free of charge vital writings by Marx, Engels, Lenin and by authors who wrote about Soviet Russia e.g Frank Lorimer.

Marxists.org is a web site, not a well-known book publisher or a scholarly journal. I have no way of verifying anything they reproduce is accurate. That's why citations need to be of a book or journal publication. If this 1946 study is as important as you say, you should be able to cite a scholarly journal or book from SOME year that published it. - Merzbow 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Marxists.org is cited in hundreds of articles in this encyclopedia. It has proved to be a reliable source.

This is an archive of past discussions about Joseph Stalin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←