Jump to content

Talk:Political repression in the Soviet Union/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The image Image:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image of famine victim and "genocide"

The image of the famine victim used in the article presented as petraining to 1933 famine is in fact from the collection of the Nansen Commission photos pertaining to the 1921 Soviet famine. I removed it. Also, please avoid using the tem "Genocide" passingly in cases where does not seem to be a mainstream consensus of the term's applicability. Ethnic deportation took place without doubt. But Genocide is a specific legal term that should be applied appropriately. --Irpen 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I just said about genocide/democide ? Dc76\talk 20:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "mainstream consensus"? Unlike in WP, I don't think there is a mainstream schilarly debate. It's politicians and ordinary people that misuse the term genocide. I haven't seen a reputable historian doing that. So, as there can not be consensus when there is no debate, why bother? The problem here, IMHO, is as you say, applicability (not consensus): did we use the term as it is used in scholarly works? Dc76\talk 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean this. The term "Genocide" was used in the section title which implied that the issue of the applicability of the term is settled. In fact it is not. There are different legal terms for different crimes. Let me give you an incomplete overview of different legal terms that apply to various events:

Not every serial killer is a mass murderer. And a legal term war crime applies in very specific situations and not to every mass murder either. (Eg. shooting a prisoner is a war crime too). And not every ethnic cleansing qualifies as genocide and it is certainly not up to a Wikipedian to make a judgment and insert it into an article.

Those terms have each their own meaning and they should not be used indiscriminately and passingly for POV-pushing purposes. Different terms apply to different events and care should be taken to use appropriate terminology specifically for such hot-button topics. --Irpen 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. I was not a supporter of the word genocide in the title of that section. On the contrary, its presence made the article look like a "cry against crimes", too emotional. I am not the proponent of such discorse. I prefer "bombarding" (the reader) in moderate language with "unpleasant" facts. :) Dc76\talk 23:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is 1921 Soviet famine part of Soviet persecusions or not?

[1]

Irpen, granted you have a point there. But we ought to discuss it, don't you think? So, let's invite the other editors to answer (preferably with citations/arguments) the question from the title of this section (Dc76\talk 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)):

Dc76, it works the other way around. If someone claims that some particular humane disaster is the fault of the political regime, that editor should bring the arguments supporting such supposition. --Irpen 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely fine for that picture to stay out as we discuss it. I am more interested in learning just for my knowledge here rather than editting. The subject is too broad for me. Dc76\talk 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
See this page and the next for a discussion of the causes. Biruitorul Talk 21:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The article says:

"Soviet political repressions was a de facto and de jure system of prosecution of people who were or perceived to be enemies of the Soviet system"

Can we get a source of this definition? --Irpen 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the first sentance of a WP article should be from a reputable sourse or a reputable encyclopedia. I'd rather prefer "Soviet political repression occured where, when, why, with what aim, to what avail." Then in the second sentence, it can be smth like "The victims were de facto and de jure prosecuted by the system for being perceived as enemies of the Soviet system". Something like that, soursed obviously. Dc76\talk 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the following as an article's opening:

Throughout different periods of the Soviet history millions of people fell victims of political repressions.

This is objective and clear and bypasses the need to somehow "define" a term whose meaning is obvious through a quasilegal definition invented by a Wikipedian. --Irpen 21:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How about without "different periods of"? The thing that sticks to my mind at this moment is Solzhenitsyn's words that the "organs" which do not work continuously die out. I do not want to push it necessarily too much in that direction, but it would be incorrect to say that the repression occured only in certain periods. We know it was continuous, and that "those" were just periods of higher intencity, and/or (like 1937-38) more concerned with communist party people, which made it more visible. Anyway, its not my speciality. I'd rather wait if other people have smarter ideas than mine. But, yes, (albeit with my caveat) something like your proposal would definitevely do, since "being perceived to be enemies of the Soviet system" can go somewhere down in the text. A phrase like that demands more elaboration, which I don't see in the article. Standing alone, it's sort of strange. Dc76\talk 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Different periods" is important because at different times there was obviously different scales with numbers of victims varying between none (or perhaps less than a dozen per year) to hundreds of thousand. --Irpen 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly to the point why I proposed to remove "deferent periods". Because there were never periods with "less than a dosen per year". There were never even period with "less than a dosen per day, or even per hour". (8760 hours/year x 70 years = 61320 hours) I'm afraid you did not read Solzhenitsyn, did you? :) Dc76\talk 02:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I did read him. The point is that the scale varied vastly. --Irpen 09:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Definition? This is not Wikitionary. An article lead "serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic", see Wikipedia:Lead section. Martintg (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Martintg, the first sentence currently in the article is not a summary of anything. It is a statement that asserts that "Soviet political repressions was..." This is and attempt to define the subject. The definition of the subject, especially of such complexity, cannot be made by a Wikipedian and inserted into an article. --Irpen 01:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems short

This article seems kind of lame ...is there a more thorough overview of Soviet repression on another page? unsigned comment by IP 70.189.32.215

No, there are many articles on specific topics, but no general/review article. This article should be extended.Biophys 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be developed thoroughly, which will take time. Until that point, it is likely that some aspects would be given undue weight simply because others aren't covered yet. I see two alternative solutions: 1) a tag on top of the article pointing the reader that it is an article in development and that the information might not be complete, proportional etc. + an invitation to contribute 2) An asssesment by a/some very knowlegeble person(s) of the full tematic extent of what is needed in the article (do we know such persons?), and as a result the creation of half a dosen empty sections: in time these sections would have to be filled and developed to more or less the same volutme as the other sections. Also it is possible to make a combination of 1) and 2)
Also I think both words "democide" and "genocide" must be used. In most instances it is correct ot use the first. In a few cases it is the case for the second. My personal understanding is that genocide occures when the number of victimes is of the order of 50% or close to that. Also, on one side, clearly genocide can not be used in reference to ethnic Russians, b/c the nation was not under threat of extinction or assimilation. On the other side, ethnic Russians represented the biggest category of Soviet victims. AFAIK, democide is the term used for ethnic Russians, while the term genocide is mostly appropriate for nations like Crimean Tatars.
Question 1 Can we use Solzhenitsyn's Arkhipelag Gulag as a sourse?
Question 2 I understand that political represion does not include for example deportees, but mostly imprisonment, executions, Gulag, specific political repressions in some areas (e.g. mountain regions of western Ukraine), forced mental assylums. Did I understand correctly? In such case we need a section "Oppostion to Soviet regime" to outline the major fenomena from armed resistance groups to Helsinki group to public protests in times of Khrushchev and Brezhnev to samizdat. Dc76\talk 18:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Answer to Q2: Sorry you are mistaken: Soviet deportees were deported precisely for political reasons, as political "enemies of the people". `'Míkka>t 19:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Q2. I mean, when they were deported together with families, as "class enemies" or "potential anti-Soviet material". Are these considered political, too? I mean, they were given forced settlements as opposed to being executed or sent to Gulag. I simply don't know, that's why I am asking. For Bessarabia and northern Bukovina I know that the number of deportees is actually 2-2.5 times bigger than the number of actually political victims (like arrested and sentenced for anti-Soviet deeds). Again, I am simply asking, I am not stating anything, and I do not claim my understanding is right/wrong. I rather want to understand how people (scholars) classify these. Do you know? Thank you very much.Dc76\talk 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I am beginning to understand your point. Regarding Bessarabia and N.Bukovina, deportations were part of "ethnic cleansing" of border regions, see Forced settlements in the Soviet Union. Similar actions were done along the whole new European Soviet border. While it is doubtless a political action, as well as violation of human rights, it is not "political repression" per se. It may be compared, e.g., with internment of Japanese in the U.S. during the WWII, although the scale was incomparable. `'Míkka>t 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
So, I understand this from you: despite the deportations being not "political repression" pre see, they are covered under "Soviet political repression" because they were a political action, etc. OK, that makes sense. Thank you!
To put it into another perspective, "cleansing of borders" was a preventive repression of people who were suspected to become the "fifth column" in the case of war. (Hehe, one more redlink; filling it right now.)`'Míkka>t 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, I know it is strange that I say this when you called it "ethnic cleansing", but among the deportees were very many ethnic minorities (I mean in B&nB). The actions did indeed have some ethnic cleansing aim/tent, especially in northern Bukovina, in the areas close to present Romanian border, there was also a "good" ethnic cleansing of Moldavians/Romanians is the cities of Budjak, however the 2 major actions (June 1941 and July 1949), which alone account for about 40% of the number of deportees were not at all ethnical: the first one contained a lot of "enriched" Jews, or ethnic Russian engineers/professionals, the second - a lot of peasants of all ethnic groups present in the countryside.
I am just wondering: maybe one day we ought to create an article Operation Yug (July 6-7, 1949 deportations that took place in a lot of other areas, not only Moldavian SSR). It just happens that I acummulated some data about this one, and I am thinking the same might be the case wiht other users, too (either 1949 archieves seem to be less secret, or 1941 ones were destroyed/moved/lost/hidden, or 1944-48 ones contain more sensible material, who knows... or maybe scholars are more interested in 1949, which would be strange, but anyhow...) Again, thank you for your explanation. Dc76\talk 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PENDING EDIT WAR

This article is going to be a battle ground for another EASTERN EUROPEAN edit war.

If we do not change from this style of editing which could be more accurately described as CENSORSHIP. Editors are acting more like censors and not allowing other points of view to be included. Major changes are being made with cryptic explanations in the edit summary. All these explanations should be found in the talk page so that a consensus can be reached.

I have reverted the last set of edits not because of the content of the edits but because they were not properly explained in TALK.

If we do not become more collaborative and communicate - the end result will be time-wasting edit wars followed by more time-wasting arbitration followed by editors being banned from WIKIPEDIA.

Remember in HISTORY there is not just ONE TRUTH - different points of view can honestly exist based on the author’s perspective. The one author’s point of view that the Soviet Union was a “workers paradise” can be valid and should be able to co-exist with another author’s valid point of view that the Soviet Union was “hell on earth”.

It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to promote the one truth.

Bobanni (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we even bother trying to create articles like this in first place? Every single bit of information will be mercilessly flagged as POV,[dubious – discuss] then the article will be whittled away to pointlessness, and then someone will propose a merge or delete. To paraphrase a line attributed[who?] to Stalin[citation needed]: no article, no problem. For most editors, particularly those not trained as professional historians, there is, indeed, only one historical truth — usually their own. —Zalktis (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
If you are referring to gratuious tagging of the intro part, this was not very thoughtful edit of user:FeelSunny; reverted. Timurite (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't rise mass hysteria and discuss the issues in essence. In particular, you have to present counter-arguments to edit summaries to edits you reverted, rather than cry panic.

Since you already know that it is a hot topic, rising the heat is disruption of wikipedia and may lead you to be banned from editing this article. Timurite (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

<sp>

From Help:Edit summary "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself. For example:

reverted edits by User:Editor, see talk for rationale

Bobanni (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bobbani. This is just another example of WP:NPOV violations by a group of users who remove information about Soviet political repressions from WP articles. A telling example is removal by Irpen of a segment about repressions conducted by SMERSH in Red Army.Biophys (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A telling example of misunderstanding is about SMERSH: while SMERSH indeed did a good deal of political repression (and it is written in "SMERSH" article in reasonable detail), the deleted piece gives not a slightest hint about this. Timurite (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for my previous harsh edit. While I understand your concern about possible eruption of revert war here, you don't have to write a long text with accusations in censorship and other personal attacks. I understand that deletion of big chunks of text may indeed look like censorship. However please let us look into detail. For example, please explain what was wrong with this deletion. It has a reasonable edit summary and I have to agree: "meat grinding" treatment of their own soldiers in Red Army is a well known fact (and I think deserves a separate article, because it has been widely discussed; please suggest a good title for the topic, and I will put in a lot of information, starting with the deleted piece) but it is hardly political repression. Timurite (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"What was wrong with this deletion"? This deletion includes, for example this segment: Stalin’s order No 270 of August 16, 1941, states that in case of retreat or surrender, all officers involved were to be shot on the spot and all enlisted men threatened with total annihilation as well as possible reprisals against their families.[1][2]. This particular order by NKVD is often considered as a repressive policy by SMERSH and NKVD. Do you need supporting refs? It is commonly accepted that SMERSH conducted mass political repressions of servicemen of Red Army and civilian population of the occupied territories.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is "commonly accepted" what you say, and you are free to write about political repressionss by SMERSH, like filtering POWs, Ostarbeiters, population of Western Belarus &Western Ukraine, and Baltic States, as well as looking for real and imaginary spies in the Army. At the same time, shooting military for retreat is not political repression. Military tribunals existed everywhere at all times, since Ancient Rome. Soviets only re-used Nazi methods (or vice versa, who knows). Of cource, my opinion may be mistake, and if you find solid referenced which call barrier troops political repression, feel free to use it. Timurite (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Not so friendly was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Order No 270 in Russian language on hrono.ru

Article scope and structure suggestions

Scope

There is an immense amount of material in wikipedia now; see category:Political repression in the Soviet Union. We don't need to put all this material in one single article here by cut and paste. Instead, what we need is a good summary article, a starting point for this broad topic, with leads to all detailed articles, according to Wikipedia:Summary Style. While I think it is self-evident, in order to switch from mutual accusation to cooperation, I suggest a quick vote, whether my siggestion is good. Timurite (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree:

  1. Timurite (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree:

  1. There is nothing to vote about. This is a typical "umbrella" article.Biophys (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Please explain your understanding of the word "umbrella article". Since you voting against my proposal, I guess it is different from the term "summary article". Timurite (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Indeed, it is ridiculos to "vote" this. What you are asking is a white check for you personally to erase whatever you want to hide from history. Dc76\talk 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  1. Please put radically different suggestions into a separate talk section and comment here only on the essence of my proposal. Timurite (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The essence of your proposal it to push all other editors out of this page. Here is a "radically different suggestion" for you: discuss the content, not procedure. Don't ask for white checks, please. And no, I am not going to start a new section for my remark and put it to vote. :) You want to bug us in procedures, that's what you want. Dc76\talk 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So, in essence, Biophys and Dc76 refuse looking for common grounds and prefer to keep the position that some cabal wants to silence them, obviously enlisting me into this cabal, despite my constructive approach. Good to know. Thank you. Timurite (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, who used the word cabal? Me? Biophys? No, you! Dc76\talk 00:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Currently the article seems to be structures along the timeline. While it makes certain sense, and indeed the first what comes to mind, I would ask you to think of another ways of structuring. Possible other ways of classification (I don's insist that my suggestions are smart; just a starter):

  1. By subject or type of events
  2. By region

Also, it makes sense to have sections about:

  1. laws which were basis of repressions
  2. repressive organs

Please continue. Timurite (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And your proposal for a Table of Contents: ... is ... Dc76\talk 00:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, after all your nervous messages above I cannot guess correctly whether it is your irony or you genuinely want to know my opinion in order to start cooperation. Timurite (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I genuinely want to see the details of your proposal. And I wasn't nervous, at all, maybe too frank, that I grant you. As I said when I dismissed your suggestion in the previous section, let's discuss content, not procedure. Dc76\talk 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not an expert historian; I guess I am just reading books, and my goal was not to impose neither content, nor procedure. My point was to invite more people to throw in a bunch of ideas. My first suggestion was to think from the beginning about a structured article, rather than an amorphous timeline-driven page like Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. While it may be helpful to find who killed whom and when, it is basically useless for finding out roots and ends. ... ... ... I took some time to think of it, and it fell heavily unto me that the whole history of the Soviet Union is the history of repression. Many people lived happily, but only in the shadow of you know who. So you may take History of the Soviet Union and all its sub-articles, insert the word repression in the titles appropriately, and I guarantee you, you will see no empty article. How do you like this proposal of the table of contents? A cross-sectional slice of the whole Soviet history? Similar cross-sectional slices may be taken from topics "Government of the Soviet Union", "Politics of the Soviet Union", "Ideology of the Soviet Union", "Law of the Soviet Union", "Culture of the Soviet Union". As a result, here is a series of articles:

Anything else? Timurite (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Appart from the fact that some titles can be imporved, it seem quite ok. But do you have that much material? Do you have 50 different sources for one article, of which at least 10 reputable scholar works? You simply can not cover such a vast subject with less. Are you prepared to give so much work time to it? We should settle real goals. Now, obviously I am only speaking about myself. Dc76\talk 04:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. After re-reading the above, I see that some other people may take me wrong. Se let me say that despite all the above it was still a great country, with much achievement, but it was due to people, not due to communism. And in fact America must be thankful to Stalin and Brezhnev: without them and the likes, today America would be selling spoons and oil to Russia, and Rouble would be preferred currency in Boston, not Euro in Moscow. Timurite (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Now, you really would do much better without such this P.S. It was NOT such a "great country", it was an oppressor country and one of the worst colonial regimes in history. It was due to the fact that it had also good people that suffered much that it was allowed to just die rathen than to be punished as Germany was after WWI, but proportionally to its deeds (which given the fact that in WWI Germany there were no Gulags, deportations, that WWI only lasted a couple years...) Dc76\talk 04:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"Worst colonial regime"? Tell this to India or to China. Name me a good colonial regime. It is an old moral blunder: "What is less bad: to kill 10 babies or to kill 1000 babies?" As for punishment, history saw what punishment of Germany after WWI have led to. You must punish persons, not countries or ethnicities. Otherwise there will be nio difference from Stalin who punished Crimean Tatars. Anyway, let us stop this general discussion of opinions and return to work on wikipedia. Timurite (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha, looks like "comrade Timurovets" is going to overdo Solzhenitsyn in monumentality of the work:-). Goodspeed. At the same time, I would like to notice an important aspect overlooked by Timurite. Recently I was writing a missing article (as usual in wikipedia, on a topic where I have zero knowledge :-), "preventive repression," and came across the term by Marcuse, "preventive counterrevolution". In the USSR, political repression was an universal instrument of what I may call now (being a wise-ass) "preventive counter-counterrevolution". As such, in addition to repression of real and imagined political opponents, it was also an instrument of ideological repression and economic repression (hehe, two red links, just filled), since since ideology and economical relations are major bases of political opposition. Therefore Timurite's list must be corrected as follows:

In fact, a "super-article", Repression in the Soviet Union makes sense, and I am starting it, together with Ideological repression in the Soviet Union. `'Míkka>t 19:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you, also, please create a template of all these articles and update it once new articles appear, resp. edit it when others are merged. It might be difficult otherwise to follow. (If I already find it difficult, think about an outsider) I will not be a dedicated contributor to this area, but I will occasionally come, read, add a few links, etc., maybe re-write a sentence or two. I assume Timurite and Mikka are the most dedicated editors in this area. Good luck! I will catch up on reading in these articles in a few days. Dc76\talk 23:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of the article

There were many types of repressions in Soviet Union. I am absolutely sure that the repressions against kulaks of late 20ies - early 30ies were about rather about economy (state just needed more resources to forced industrialization). These repressions costed Soviet republics millions of lives. There were also repressions against nationalities. These should not be considered political, as the whole ethnos (see Ingush, or Crimean Tartar) was repressed, even communists of this background. I propose name change to something reflecting both politicy, nationality and economy-driven repressions. FeelSunny (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you have misunderstanding. First "political repression" is an instrument. Economy and industrialization is a goal. So there is no contradiction here. Second, kulaks were repressed exactly for political reasons: their form of ownerwhip was incompatible with communist idea, and they presented an obstacle and resistance to soviet politics. Even if kulaks were quietly paying all burdens of prodrazvyorstka, prodnalog, etc., this would not change the fact that they used hired labor, which is "exploitation" in Marxist parlance, and which is inadmissible in socialism/communism. You may say that not all kulaks were using hired labor (more correctly to say, the label "kulak" was slapped on many hard-working peasants who achieved their riches by work of family), but this is a different and long story, which is no sense to discuss here. Third: whole ethnoses you mentioned were repressed exactly as political action: they were repressed not because they were Ingush, but because Ingush were declared nation of traitors, collaborators with Nazis. Fourth, "even communists" is not an argument: communists themselves were routinely repressed all the time. Timurite (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Both Kulaks and Russian Orthodox church undergo repressions for economical reasons: their savings were used as a resource for forced industrialization. They also presented an obstacle to Soviet politics, but we may argue for a long time whether political or economical reasons were the main. I think we should give reader a chance to make conclusions on his own, not present a ready version as an ultimate answer. Thus, I do not think we should label repressions against kulaks peasants or church 'political' only. Kulaks also were the primary labour force on 'Great projects of Communism' of Stalin's five years plans. That is the reason I propose name change to "Repressions in Soviet Union".
This article may also include section about repression toward nationalities during 30-40ies, which may also not be labeled political, as they were not connected with "politics" of these nationalities, which they had none. No Tartars or Ingush were repressed because they were political opponents, and we should not claim that the repressions were political, as Hitler's repressions (or henocide) of Jews was political neither. It was an ethnic cleansing, or henocide in Germany, which is not quite a "political" repression. I Soviet Union, they were repression against ethnoses, not against "traitors". We need not operate Stalin's terminology.
Another thing I would like to add: there were clearly political repressions and they lasted throughout Soviet history. There were political repressions against:
  1. (1917-1930ies) pre-revolution political party members, "white movement" officials and supporters,
  2. (1917-30ies) opposition church leders,
  3. (1917-30ies) "capitalist elements" (i.e. pre-revolution elite, economy, army, science, culture leaders),
  4. (1930ies - early 1940ies) Communist party old members, Soviet army elite, state and economical elite - "Stalin's cleansings",
  5. big wave of repressions in liberated (you may place "" quotes here if you like) countries in Europe, where the same "capitalist" and "atni-communist" groups were destroyed after the war,
  6. (from late 1940ies to Khruschev's "Ottepel'" in late 1950-ies and from early Brezhnev' epoque till the start of Gorbatchev's "Perestroyka") all political opponents (which included both sending to labour camps and claiming that the opponents are insane and sending them to mental hospitals).
This is not the full list, of course, and I am ready to discuss it. I would also like to see them reflected in the article. However, I think we should consider we have clearly political repressions here and we should not label "political" other ones, that are connected rather with other reasons.FeelSunny (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The article has been renamed from Soviet political repression to Political repression in the Soviet Union, with no discussion at all, as far as I can see. Usually renaming suggestions are discussed in a separately titled section, not buried in some other thread. Since the new name, unlike the old, now precludes the possibility of discussing cases of real or alleged political repression perpetrated by the Soviet regime in other countries (e.g. during the Spanish Civil War, in the Soviet occupation zone of Germany after WWII, etc.), I don't think that this page move can really be classified as uncontroversial. Please consider reverting to the old title, discuss, and then move after a consensus is reached. —Zalktis (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any controversy of the move. The article does not discuss Soviet repression in Germany. The move matches the article content, which is huge enough to add other countries. By the way, whatever bad Soviets did abroad (you forgot to mention notable and numerous Soviet intervention in African developing countries), it was either intervention or pressure on the corresponding governments, and should be covered in the corresponding separate articles, under proper titles. Timurite (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate a little on Soviet-African relations? For I have not heard about Soviet Union misbehavior toward Africa, mostly about Western one.FeelSunny (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that no consensus was reached on the talk page before the move was made. At the time it happened, the article was in a phase where there was ongoing discussion of its scope; this, in my opinion is precisely not the time to rename the page to something that actually limits the scope of the article. Just my 2¢ worth. —Zalktis (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

References

I'm going to insert some [citation needed] into the article. Not because I do not beleive the statements, but actually because I feel they are right and should be made more trustworthy using appropriate references.

I would also humbly advise future editors to use some Soviet and Russian sources (consider Solzhenitsyn, or Sakharov, for example) rather than Western or Eastern European, that would have too little credibility in the eyes of Russian audience for the topic. FeelSunny (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The tags placed like this: "Repression was conducted by the Cheka[citation needed], OGPU[citation needed] and NKVD[citation needed]", without comments in talk page explaining why you doubt that Cheka was instrument of repression, make me doubt your intentions. While I agree that the article is poor, it is only the beginning, and if you really want to improve it, please discuss the content in specific terms. Timurite (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Your remark about Russian sources is duly noted. There is a rich Russian source of factual information about Soviet repressions, both in Russian and English languages: publications and website of the Memorial Society. While Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn are respectable people who were breaking some really solid walls in the difficult era, it it time to give word to professional historians such as Pavel Polian. Timurite (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I would not call Polian a professional historian. A soviet-time academician, not specializing in history.FeelSunny (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I am just strack as odd when I see first "Let's not use non-Soviet and non-Russian sources, even if by reputable scholar, they are not trustworthy b/c to some Russians they might seem so". Then step two "Lets' not use arbitrary Russian/Soviet sourse, b/c there are some "fringe" writings like by Solzhenitsyn or Sakharov. Let's just use only this sourse I tell you.". For all it si worth, the source can actually be good. But such extent of self-censorship from, I assume quite educated people, is beyond belief in 21st century!!! Dc76\talk 22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Your attempt to put your words in my mouth are deplorable. I didn't call Sakharov "fringe" or said we should not cite them. I merely added that there are quite a few historians working on the issue in these new times, when more factual information is available. I don't tell you which sources to use. Please cease this fighting attitude. Finally, my call to use materials of Memorial as "censorship" is, like, ROTFLMAO. Timurite (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason why I asked to use Russian sources as primary is that the periodization of the repressions based on 9 and 10 Western sources looks just plain wrong, for example, peasants repressions are included into the Great Purge here.FeelSunny (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I made a remark of the way the reasoning was going. Is "While Sakharov and (...) are respectable people (...), it it time to give word to (...)" not the same as calling him "fringe"? You were fringing him out. Also, I did not refer to Memorial when I said "self-censorship", I refered to the logic of the rseasoning you were doing, I pointed you a logical mistake and called that mistake, not Memorial, self-censorship. Before you ROTFLMAO be sure you laugh at the right thing, please. :-) I did not put any words into your mouth, I used them as adjectives, they were in my mouth. Dc76\talk 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Please try not to read between lines. I wrote what I wrote and meant what I meant. Since there is misunderstanding, let me go into long and boring detail. With some exceptions, most wikipedians are not trained historians and edit what they want and where they want. I am not saying that this is bad. This is good (I am not going to quote Jimbo Wales on this). At the same time really interested people must be aware of limited knowledge of these people. In particular, when speaking about Soviet repressions, everybody, including our new colleague FeelSunny, remember several buzznames: Conquest, Sakharov, etc., but rarely more. And there is a perfect explanation: Time has passed. Soviet life is no longer frontpage news in the West, and nobody gives damn how many Russkies died. Nevertheless, the scholar work continues, and quite a few prominent researchers emerged, but does our friend FeelSunny know them? I doubt. Let me hive you an extreme comparison, to make my point clear. Aristotheles or Archimedes or Pythagoras were great men. We respect them. We have theorems and theories named after tyhem. But do we really write wikipedia articles in math or physics by books of Euclid? No. Euclid is part of history of mathematics. Just the same with Solzhenitsyn. We respect him: he have taught the English world a hew word "gulag". But now he is a page of history. His Gulag Archipelago is an invaluable firsthand record of what had happened then. It made a huge impression. However now it is not the source of ultimate wisdom, but one of many primary sources from which historians build a more complete knowledge. I am aware that for some people this sounds like blasphemy, just as it is blasphemy to criticize the Gospel or "Foundations of Leninism". Timurite (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
My second point: please try to be less jumpy. After all, my sentence could have been a result of quick and sloppy writing, and I didn't really mean what it may seem. If you see something against your opinions, especially from a person like me with whom you never really worked, please start from asking questions, not from accusations. Unless you enjoy fight more than cooperation. Timurite (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry I was to jumpy. And I do understand very well the point you made above, I actually agree with almost everything you said, including primary sources. There are however a few small points:

  • An article in WP ideally has to cite both scholarly works and some primary sources. The latter are sometimes (not always) emotional. The former, unfortunately, are not rarely filtered through a lot of personal oppinion of the scholar, an oppinion which might be very easy to spot for a fellow historian, but difficult to observe for a general reader. That's why historians are not rarely met with distrust. Here is where I disagree with your comparison: history is not mathematics. Let us not confuse humanities wiht sciences. The Pythagoras' theorem, to cite the simplest example, has not changed since the time of Pythagoras. What two mathematicians say about a theory X is exactly the same thing, no matter which country they are from, what political oppinions the hold, or even if they live centuries appart. Science is exact. One can not ignore a sourse even if it is millenia old. Did you know that until 100 years ago every botanist believed that some common insect (i forgot which one) is 6 or 8 legs, while it was the opposite, just because Aristotel said that! Whatever articles WP writes about mathematics or other sciences, they are super-simplistic for scientists. In science there are excellent peer-reviewed encyclopedias, which make science branch of WP dwarf. That is possible for one single reason: science does not change, science does not have oppinion, unlike humanities. Euclid and Aristotel are part of the scientific community and will be so till the end of time.
  • There is however a feature of history's scholarly works, that allows it to be respected: scholars that repeatedly publish inaccuraces loose their reputation as professionals (albeit only in long term). So, when there are 2-3 of them saying that on day X, event Y happened, chances are it did happen (you can never know for sure, like in science). Also, exactly for that reason, you need to cite primary sources even when telling the story to a layman: primary sources are emotional, they can tell that orange is red, but they never tell that black is white. A historian can presume from his body of knowledge that sometihng has happened, and assign it some approximate place and some approximate time. A primary sourse won't do this.
  • Over the last two days you did some radical changes to the article, which definitively have radically shifted the emphazis. That's why people are protesting. For what it is worth, the changes your performed might be right, but given the fact that you seem to have been fully aware you would do radical changes (and it seems you want to do more other changes), wouldn't be more logical that you first gave an outline of your plan in the tlak page? (hence my previous question about your supposed table of contents). You could have explained: Here I want 10-12 sections, and give 2-3 sentences description of what you want to put in each section. If you would go that far, everybody would have respected your knowledge. Once the section outline is agreed upon, the existing article text (no matter how poor) has to be kept, but distributted in each section. At that point you can start working on section by section. For the most contigious points, do not erase the "wrong" sentences, but add your own in new paragraphs. We might not be scholars in history, but we are intelligent enough to distinguish between a quality text and a non-quality text. Hence we would have preferred your paragraphs (with 2-3 words changed and an extra citation, maybe). If you are a specialist, you know how to present your case, we don't have to tell you. Hopefully, you won't still consider us a bunch of ten-agers just because we are not historians.
  • consider to answer for yourself whether your activity in an article that lies within your professional area does not constitute WP:OR. A scholar is supposed to write papers in peer-reviewed journals, not on WP.

Please, don't take this persoanlly. I am just hoping to reduce the discussion to a content dispute, or even not dispute, to a content active discussion (there is even a tag wiht that name, very neutral tag that you can put on an article which you are developing). Dc76\talk 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing me with user:Irpen. It is he who "over the last two days did some radical changes". I merely restored his reverted edits, because the reversal was done without making factual objections to the changes. I gave you a specific explanation about one particular deletion of Irpen. You gave me your point of view how you consider this deletion. I see your point, ad we together may write a reasonable piece insdead of the deleted one. This is how wikipedia is supposed to work. Now, you write: "do not erase the "wrong" sentences, but add your own". I beg to disagree: first of all, these sentences were not "wrong", they are merely in wrong article. What is more, this info already exists in several places of wikipedia, and there is no reason for panic cry that someone wants to hide history. I will write brief sketch of WWII period below, in talk page, since I am not ready to add sources. Timurite (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If I offended you, directly or indirectly, I am sincerely sorry. Back to the matter: I read now in more detail and more carefully the changes, and indeed I must admit that you only re-did some of the changes Irpen made. (+you now explained them in the talk page) I am very sorry I failed to see this before. I might not be able to contribute to this article in the very near future, but I will come back later. Please, do proceed without me, since I think I will be able to catch up. Dc76\talk 23:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Periods of repressions

Let's make a correct periodization here. Please, use multiple Russian (or translated), rather than Western sourses, as latter lack understanding of periodisation.

I am sorry to repost it, but it seems important. Right now the periodization on the page looks strange. For example, Great Purge (1937-38) did not involve repressions against peasants (millions of them were repressed during "Kulak campaign" in early 30ies).

  1. (1917-early 20-ies) pre-revolution political parties members, "white movement" officials and supporters,
  2. (1917-30ies) opposition church leaders,
  3. (1917-30ies) peasants uprisings, "capitalist elements" (i.e. pre-revolution elite, economy, army, science, culture leaders),
  4. (late 20-ies - early 30-ies) - peasants, in millions. "Kulaks" and their famnilies, 1932 "three spikes law" and forced industrialization on peasants' money,
  5. (1930ies - early 1940ies) Communist party old members, Soviet army elite, state and economical elite - "Stalin's cleansings",
  6. wave of repressions in liberated (you may place "" quotes here if you like) countries in Europe, where the same "capitalist" and "atni-communist" groups were destroyed after the war,
  7. 1941-1950 - nations that were "collaborating" (in Stalin's/ CPSU's view) with occupants during the Great Patriotic war,
  8. (from late 1940ies ("Doctors process", "дело врачей") to Khruschev's "Ottepel'" in late 1950-ies and from early Brezhnev' epoque till the start of Gorbatchev's "Perestroyka") all political opponents (which included both sending to labour camps and claiming that the opponents are insane and sending them to mental hospitals).

Peasants were possibly the majority of those dozens of millions repressed in the USSR, and they had nothing to do with "Great purge" that was actually great in it's impression, not in numbers of repressed. Great purge dealed with elite, that is why it was so well-known. However (see Solzhenitsyn's "Archipelago Gulag", for example, during late 20-ies - early 30-ies much more people (peasants mostly) were sent to labour camps, where millions died of starvation and cold. FeelSunny (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

While I basically agree with what you wrote, I have to remark that the article has no "periodization", in the sense of chronology. The article was expanded from my basic stub by a haste cut-and-paste from many wikipedia articles dealing with particular cases of Soviet repression, without particular scholarship to notice, just a heap of stuff, later tidied up a bit, but still a shapeless heap. I also agree that to write this article basing on dated books of Conquest etc. would be improper. Conquest wrote when there was close to none information. While he must be praised for undertaking the job in his times, more recent works must be in the foundation. In particular, Conquest did overhype the notion of "Great Terror". Terror existed all along, since the very 1917, only for different categories of people. I like to compare the reasons why "great purge" got such an attention with the the following russian joke. "Two hoodlums talking: 'I don't like the snout of this guy. Let's kick his ass' - 'But what if he kicks ours instead?' - 'But why would he want to?' " - Only when the repression turned onto the Soviet new class itself, it suddenly become cruel and unjust. Repressed peasants and workers who were late 2 minutes to their workplace did not write books and memoirs. By the way, it is meaningless to count who was majority in gulags. Yes, peasants were, but they were, like, 75-85% of population. During industrialization the share of workers, "proletarian dictators" steadily grew. Also, most peasants were sent to exile settlements, not to gulag camps. (Although Solzhenitsyn wrote that these exile settlements could be easily turned onto camps overnight with a roll of barbed wire.) `'Míkka>t 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what you say. So unless we have other opinions posted here, I think we should start the periodization part.FeelSunny (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with both of you. I would like to add years to 6: 1939-1953, because you mentioned years for all others. Also, where do we talk about uprizings in Gulags? I once did an article on Vorkuta uprizing in Romanian Wikipedia, and was surprized that the English one did not have it except for 2 lines. Dc76\talk 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Gulag uprisings. The information about insurrections/strikes in gulag has been rather scarce, and an overview in wikipiedia is a missing topic indeed. `'Míkka>t 19:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to say the most important thing I wanted: There is no periodization of repression apart form the periodization of the whole Soviet history. Soviet political repression is an immense topic, and "periodization" (I'd rather use the term "chronology") is but a small and IMO secondary aspect in understanding the topic, while I agree it is a human nature to arrange things in a linear order for an illusion of understanding. I am not going to pretend I am an expert in the subject and a cannot write overview texts on such huge topics. If one wants to make an order with this article, it comes to my mind that a good analog would be the article Slavery in the United States. I'd suggest to look at it, see what's good and bad in its arrangement, and proceed from there. Another suggestion is to start a major rewriting in a work page, Political repression in the Soviet Union/rewrite, where the article may have an unfinished shape, such as empty sections, unkempt/commented text, etc. It is often done in wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 19:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
To understand history is to know facts, dates, actors and reasons. What was done, when, by who, and why. This implies we need a periodization of some kind on this page. FeelSunny (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, all this is very useful to know. I looked over the Slavery in the US article, but I need to read it in more detail... About my question, I meant that this article could spear a paragraph to mention some of the largest uprisings. But, yes, I agree, we should simply put the articles in that category before we find scholarly works on the entire subject (i.e. not on particular uprisings), when we can actualy have a specialized article. Well, I will be following the developments in this article, but I am lagging behind, so I would refrain from contributing in the near future. Dc76\talk 20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_repression_in_the_Soviet_Union/Archive_1&oldid=1190475518"