Talk:History of the Soviet Union/Archive 1

Guppie, you can't even spell the guy's name, why are you even on here? j/k ;)

I'm going to have to cut this short thanks to a lack of time but here's something to chew on...

Stalin was not a dictator as any unbiased study of the Soviet Union tell you. There were many many other forces and political games at work in the Soviet Union. It's like saying Clinton or Bush was/is a dictator because he could send the marines or the CIA to kill people in another country. No, that's not a dictator. That is just a man with what some would call too much power. I'll be the first to say the SOVIET GOVERNMENT had plenty of power, oh did it ever, but not Stalin as an individual. His power included what the Soviet Constitution (this is a tangent of sorts, but which was probably more Democratic than our own) gave him and on occasion manipulating the personality cult that his supporters had built up around him (not vice versa, by the way). It's the way politics work in structured systems and the Soviet government was very much structured and centralized. Is that bad or wrong? It worked for them. People in Russia, when Khrushchev, Brezhnev and the other goons came to power, make jokes about them that are rather interesting if you look at them. One such joke went that Brezhnev took his mother to his new, beautiful, four bedroom apartment in Moscow and when she saw it, she said "Leonid, I'm scared!" He was a bit confused but continued on with his tour and took his mother out to this new dacha that had been built for him in the Russian countryside. Again, she said "Leonid, I'm really scared!" Still confused, he decided to make one more try in an attempt to make her proud. So, he showed her to this huge, brand new office with all kinds of luxaries. Finally, she yelled "Leonid! Stop!" and Brezhnev, horribly confused at this point asks his mother what the problem is. In kind scared, half whisper she said "what if the communists come back?" This is, of course, just one of many but jokes were used as a means to communicate politics after the KGB started coming down on people during Khrushchev and Brezhnev's era.

As far as the gulags go, no. There is no concrete evidence. That goes for the "great purges" too. There were work camps in Russia but they were not the hell on earth that virulent anti-communist liars like Solzhenitsyn and Conquest say they were. They were, in fact, about the same condition as the labor done in prisons now, here in the US. The difference was that if the person had a family, they were paid a regular wage and the money from their prison work went to assist in support of their family. Of course people died in them. Just like any other prison or work camp on earth, Soviet ones may have been the least brutal of their time but they were by no means nice. You had your prison gangs, and your tough guys, and your straight out killers.

As far as the great purges go, it is something else that has been completely blown out of. In a nutshell, any of the purges were oriented towards kicking people out of the party that were considered parasites or opportunists -- not killing them. If you would like to know what the great purges actually were and not some fantasy about however many tens of millions of people died and mysteriously disappeared, there is a Ph.D dissertation that runs about 585 pages called "The 'Great Purges' Reconsidered: The Soviet Communist Party, 1933-1939" which is an excellent piece on the subject. You can pick that one up here for about $32 if you're interested: http://wwwlib.umi.com/dxweb/details?doc_no=1747414

The only "physical evidence" that has turned up is graveyards with some people who have died of gunshot wounds. Apparently, grave digging is all the rage for westerners who their fabricated stories are starting to fall apart and they desparately need "evidence" to back up a claim that is vomit inducing in itself.

Feel free to cut out the statement about the Soviet Union's low tolerance for Fascism. It wouldn't be hard to prove, but it should in fact go without saying.

Finally, I will be the first to say that, without a doubt, Socialism failed in Russia. So please, do not get the wrong idea.

If you want another good book on this subject, check out The Red Executive by David Granick. It over what the Soviet economy was like (albeit in the late fifties/early sixties) and how life the Soviet Union generally was and is very good about critiquing the Soviet economy.

Thanks for the criticism, I suppose. --Eco

Why the revert? It is a well-known fact that Stalin and the Gulag system killed millions. And the part that implies Stalin was not a dictator seems very odd too. --mav

Cutted out a few *VERY* odd statements:


 * It is however documented that Germany received notice of a planned attack by the Soviet Union. Whether it is or not seem irrelevant. It would not be surprising as Stalin and the Soviet Union had little tolerance for Fascism.

I have never heard of this. And if it is "documented" and still unknown to an amateur, like me I want to see some references.


 * , and served as the first dictators of the Soviet Union.

Referring to Breshnjev and Chrustjev, but AFAIK Lenin was the first wasn't he? --BL

Eco has some explaining to do as to why he calls Khrushchev and Brezhnev dictators, but not Lenin and Stalin, and why he thinks there are no physical evidence of the Gulag system. I just reverted his last changes. -Guppie, 30.09.2002


 * Many allege that from 1921 3.7 million people were sentenced for counter-revolutionary crimes, including 0.6 million sentenced to death, 2.4 million sentenced to and labor camps, and 0.8 million sentenced to expatriation (see Gulag). There is, however, no physical evidence to support these statistics.

The claim no physical evidence to support these statistics is a very strong one, and itself should be backed up with at least one reference. Also, if "many" say differently, let's have their references as well. --Ed Poor

Evidence of Soviet mass murder
"Joseph Stalin was the dictator of the Soviet Union for nearly a quarter of a century. His rule is infamous for his use of police terror and the frequent mass murders of his own people." 

The measures taken by Stalin to discipline those who opposed his will involved the death execution or famine of at least 10 million peasants (1932-33). 

Robert Conquest's estimates (loosely quoted from his 1968 book): If we conservatively assume an average camp population of 8 millions for the years 1936-50, with an annual mortality rate of 10%, that means 12 millions dead. In addition, there was at least 1 million death penalties during the same period -also very conservatively. Then we have the victims of the period before the Great Purges, 1930-36: approx. 3.5 millions, mostly pesants killed during the collectivization, and an equal number sent to the camps, of which almost everybody during a few years. That gives a total of 20 millions dead, probably a low number, during Stalins regime.

From the Encyclopedia of Marxism (Free Documentation License): From 1934 to 1939 Stalin ordered a series of executions and imprisonments, largely directed towards people within the Soviet government. Half of the members of the first Council of Peoples Commissars were executed in 1938 (A quarter of them had died natural deaths before hand, of the remaining quarter only Stalin lived past 1942). Some government officials executed were thought to be Nazi agents or sympathisers, while others were accused for planning to overthrow the Soviet government. Members of the Left Opposition who were allowed to return to the party after accepting Stalinism were soon executed, those who remained abroad were hunted down and killed. Also executed were people belonging to the right-wing of the party (Bukharin and others). The exact number of people executed is not known, estimates range from thousands to millions.

-- Hm, Eco's version and opinions look like historical revisionism to me. I vote for Guppie's version. --Dan


 * Yes! Let us hold a vote at this time!

--

First off, props to my good man, Ed Poor. I'd like to address Conquest's bogus claims in depth though because I know this is where many people get their "evidence." I also see we've had some Trots editing the Soviet history page too. Well, I'll get around to that if I have the time. I've been dealing with Trots longer than I'd like to ever have. Anyway...

Dan, you'd like that wouldn't you? I've only encountered a handful of people here who can maintain a decent debate -- and that's why I stay. There are, however, many more who run their mouths on a subject I've found they know only what their third grade history book told them. In other words, little to nothing about Soviet history which in some cases, such as Stalins, 'is' very complicated!

Robert Conquest... ahhh, Conquest. Well, I've read Harvest of Sorrow and the Great Terror but first, how about we go into a little of Conquest's background? I don't like to defame people but Mr. Conquest's background is very much reason to at least be skeptical of his claims. For the sake of time, I'm going to cite one article a lot, which I will link at the bottom when I'm done.

Robert Conquest worked for the IRD from when it was set up until 1956. The Information Research Department (IRD), was a section set up in 1947 (originally called the Communist Information Bureau) whose main task was to combat communist influence throughout the world by planting stories among politicians, journalists and others in a position to influence public opinion. Conquest?s "work" there was to contribute to the so-called "black history" of the Soviet Union. In other words, fake stories put out as fact and distributed among journalists and others able to influence public opinion. After he had formally left the IRD, Conquest continued to write books suggested by the IRD, with secret service support. His book "The Great Terror", a basic anti-communist text on the subject of the power struggle that took place in the Soviet Union in 1937, was in fact a recompilation of text he had written when working for the secret services. The book was finished and published with the help of the IRD. A third of the publication run was bought by the Praeger press, normally associated with the publication of literature originating from CIA sources. Conquest?s book was intended for presentation to "useful fools", such as university professors and people working in the press, radio and TV. Conquest to this day remains, for anti-communist historians, one of the most important sources of material on the Soviet Union. If that isn't enough for you right there, let's continue with some of his later work.

The style of Conquest?s books is one of violent and fanatical anti-communism. In his 1969 book, Conquest tells us that those who died of starvation in the Soviet Union between 1932-1933 amounted to between 5 million and 6 million people, half of them in the Ukraine. But in 1983, during Reagan?s anti-communist crusade, Conquest had extended the famine into 1937 and increased the number of victims to 14 million! Such assertions turned out to be well rewarded: in 1986 he was signed up by Reagan to write material for his presidential campaign aimed at preparing the American people for a Soviet invasion, The text in question was called "What to do when the Russians come - a survivalists? handbook!" Strange words coming from a Professor of History!

I'm gonna have to cut it right here. My time just ran out. If this background info on Conquest doesn't put some immediate doubt into your mind, consider that his physical evidence, well, it isn't physical! It's just in his book.

Ok, anyway, you'll see the parts I took from the article in it. I'll be glad to answer any questions later but PLEASE just leave the Soviet history section as is otherwise it's going to turn into something ugly. Please.

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html

--Eco

If what you say is true then all I have learned about history through school and into college must be just Western propoganda about the Soviets and is not rooted in reality. So I guess all my previous history professors are wrong and you are right. Revisionism is not welcome here in Wikipedia and your attitude in saying "it's going to turn into something ugly." if you don't get your way just confirms my original gut feeling. If an edit war starts here the page can be locked so I suggest we work this out in the true spirit of NPOV. --mav

Mav, in my student days in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I often ran into hardcore pro-communists (or fellow travelers) like Eco. In every case, I found that they had an ulterior motive for spouting their various odd claims.

At first, I found this disconcerting because as the descendant of scientists and engineers I was trained to consider the facts first and come up with a hypothesis second. It is only propagandists who choose a position and then search for ways to support it. I hate propaganda. (Yes, I know my church may seem dogmatic at first glance, but if you'll take a closer look you'll see there is much fact-based reasoning behind its doctrines. Anyway, I am not using Wikipedia to promote my religion - just ask Wesley or slr.)

If we are to make a truly useful article on the History of the Soviet Union, then we will need to consider a variety of sources. I daresay a controversial historical subject requires more references than some uncontroversial branch of mathematics or chemistry; if Axelboldt writes something about his area of expertise, I never double-check him.

There are people who sincerely believe that the Soviet system was wonderful. If they are right, it should be easy for them to prove it. If they are wrong, it should also be easy to prove.

What we need is good documentation. --Ed Poor

Hmmm... Will the soviet union's own censuses do? A quick google for "soviet census purges" turns up a lot of references to the suppressed soviet censuses of 1937 and 1939, suppressed because they showed how many millions had died in purges and famines. Lucky for apologists that WWII could be used to explain away the missing population. Yale library even has the microfilms of the censuses, for the determined researcher: http://www.library.yale.edu/slavic/census3739.html -- Malcolm Farmer


 * Yes, thank you, Malcolm. Please weave that information into the article. --Ed Poor

I found an article by J.A Newth The 1970 Soviet Census  (http://azecon.aznet.org/azecon/Articles/social/1972/The%201970%20Soviet%20Census.pdf), which I used to update Demographics of the Soviet Union. It presents totally different numbers for 1926 and 1939 than the material at Yale, so it didn't make me much wiser... I also agree with Eco that analysis of population numbers is a very crude method to estimate the number of people killed in a famine, since the fertility rate would also drop in times of chaos, and account for an unknown part of the missing population increase. Complete census data would be better, since you could see the decrease in each age group. Someone should really go to the library at Yale and look at the raw data, I can't find them on the net... --Guppie

--

That's fine, mav. It's obvious none of you, except maybe Ed, want to debate this and refuse to first argue the claim before weaving it into the article (though Ed did that one too). No surprise. You have yet to refute ANY of my own refutation against your claims. If you are not willing to let debate continue before we go making changes, I'll quietly leave Wikipedia and remove everything I wrote. Nooo problem at all.

I knew the population statistics would come up though I was at least expecting you to do more to counter my own arguments. For the sake of time, I'll again cite the article but on the population statistics. Not that it seems to matter. Read and weep. You're the historical revisionists -- not me. The west wasn't exempt from putting out all kinds of propaganda about the Soviet Union out from the day it was created to long after it's fall. I know this may come as a surprise to you as well, but your goddamn history teacher is not psychic either. You're messiah Robert Conquest is himself a propaghandist who was paid for his work by the government for some time in contributing false stories about the Soviet Union. He just took it one step further and compiled them into a book. I have friends who were around during the time of the Soviet Union and they will, or more appropriately, their grandparents will tell you when they got over to the west after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and heard the claims about Stalin, they didn't know whether to laugh or what. They were absolutely shocked that such a big lie could be put out in the west and guess what? The public ate it up! That was their perspective anyway. What would they know though? They were only alive during that time and didn't leave the first chance they got so they could go hopefully exploit people to become grotesquely rich.

That right there is more credibility than I think many of you will ever know.

Now, on to the statistics...

Conquest, Solzhenitsyn, Medvedev and others used statistics published by the Soviet Union, for instance, national population censuses, to which they added a supposed population increase without taking account of the situation in the country. In this way they reached their conclusions as to how many people there ought to have been in the country at the end of given years. The people who were missing were claimed to have died or been incarcerated because of socialism. The method is simple but also completely fraudulent. This type of "revelation" of such important political events would never have been accepted if the "revelation" in question concerned the western world. In such a case it is certain that professors and historians would have protested against such fabrications. But since it was the Soviet Union that was the object of the fabrications, they were acceptable. One of the reasons is certainly that professors and historians place their professional advancement well ahead of their professional integrity.

In numbers, what were the final conclusions of the "critics?" According to Robert Conquest (in an estimate he made in 1961) 6 million people died of starvation in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. This number Conquest increased to 14 million in 1986. As regards what he says about the gulag labour camps, there were detained there, according to Conquest, 5 million prisoners in 1937 before the purges of the party, the army and the state apparatus began. After the start of the purges then, according to Conquest, during 1937-38, there would have been an additional 7 million prisoners, making the total 12 million prisoners in the labour camps in 1939! And these 12 million of Conquest?s would only have been the political prisoners! In the labour camps there were also common criminals, who, according to Conquest, would have far outnumbered the political prisoners. This means, according to Conquest, that there would have been 25-30 million prisoners in the labour camps of the Soviet Union.

Again according to Conquest, a million political prisoners were executed between 1937 and 1939, and another 2 million died of hunger. The final tally resulting from the purges of 1937-39, then, according to Conquest, was 9 million, of whom 3 million would have died in prison. These figures were immediately subjected to "statistical adjustment" by Conquest to enable him to reach the conclusion that the Bolsheviks had killed no fewer than 12 million political prisoners between 1930 and 1953. Adding these figures to the numbers said to have died in the famine of the 1930s, Conquest arrived at the conclusion that the Bolsheviks killed 26 million people. In one of his last statistical manipulations, Conquest claimed that in 1950 there had been 12 million political prisoners in the Soviet Union.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn used more or less the same statistical methods as Conquest. But by using these pseudo-scientific methods on the basis of different premises, he arrived at even more extreme conclusions. Solzhenitsyn accepted Conquest?s estimate of 6 million deaths arising from the famine of 1932-33. Nevertheless, as far as the purges of 1936-39 were concerned, he believed that at least 1 million people died each year. Solzhenitsyn sums up by telling us that from the collectivisation of agriculture to the death of Stalin in 1953, the communists killed 66 million people in the Soviet Union. On top of that he holds the Soviet government responsible for the death of the 44 million Russians he claims were killed in the Second World War. Solzhenitsyn?s conclusion is that "110 million Russians fell, victims of socialism." As far as prisoners were concerned, Solzhenitsyn tells us that the number of people in labour camps in 1953 was 25 million.

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html

Sorry guys, I'll I've gotten is harassment so far. You have some serious defending of your claims to do so I'll disappear for a while and let you decide if you want to:

A) Actually challenge one of my "counter-claims" B) Ban or somehow get rid of me by force or C) Continue to talk about me in third person while presenting more claims for me to debunk.

This ain't Jeopardy, so take your time. --Eco

Eco, I'm sorry I spoke about you in the third person. However, your "my way or the highway" attitude isn't going to sway many of us into dropping our standards. New ideas that challenge the consensus face an uphill battle. I've faced the same thing with global warming, which is (to me) clearly a hoax perpetrated by environmentalists backed by power-hungry Democrats. Would anyone listen. Nooooo. But I took the "harassment" and made my case over time.

You'll have to do the same thing, if you want to defend the Soviet Union against charges of tyranny or mass murder. But no one is going to ban you (B), although some might still talk about you behind your back (C)! You're playing with the big boys now: get used to it.

As for challenging your counter-claims (A), all I can say is that providing sources for historical claims is the strongest argument for their inclusion in the article. --Ed Poor

-

Ok, well, you have my apologies if I came off in a "my way or the highway" type attitude. That wasn't what I was going for at all. I'm willing to let the other side have their say too. We'd be one step ahead of any other encyclopedia if we always did that! ;)

--Eco


 * Well, the problem is that with absolutely anyone having the power to make changes, there's a tendency to try to get in the last word. Hmm, I seem to be doing so right now in this talk page! :-) But the goal is to make a lasting contribution to human knowledge, so what can we do? If you think Solzh. or Conquest used faulty methods, maybe there should be some criticism of those methods in the article. Or maybe we need a separate article on the historiagraphy of mass murder. All I'm saying is that shouting at each other isn't going to get us anywhere. The page will still be here if you leave. But it's not easy for amateurs like me (and I presume, you) to write a history article, especially when people you can't even see are looking over your shoulder and editing your work mercilessly.


 * I hope you can adapt. It took me several months... --Ed Poor

-

I noticed there is no mention of the collectivization on the page, what about this (Rephrased from Eric Hobsbawm's The Age of Extremes: The basic agricultural policy that replaced NEP, compulsory collectivization, was disastrous. Its immediate effect was to lower grain output and almost halve livestock, thus producing major famines in 1932-33, particularly in Ukraine. Collectivization led to a drop in the already low productivity of Russian farming, which did not regain the NEP level until 1940, or allowing for the further disasters of World War II, 1950. (Elias H. Tuma, Twenty-six Centuries of Agrarian Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965)

This is (IMHO) much more NPOV than the text on Stalin. --Guppie

Thanks for finding that factoid, Guppie. Why don't you see if you can weave it into an article somewhere? Have you looked at collective farming? --Ed Poor

--

Thought I'd drop by real quick and see how things are going....

''The page will still be here if you leave. But it's not easy for amateurs like me (and I presume, you) to write a history article, especially when people you can't even see are looking over your shoulder and editing your work mercilessly.''

Nah, I won't leave without having my IP blocked from Wikipedia first. =D

Thanks, Ed.

Guppie,

If you want something in terms of refutation of the Ukrainian famine, there was an article I gave to Ed and which I think is a good starting place called "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust" which was put out by the Village Voice. Here's the link to a copy of it.

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/sov-hol.html

If there's anything it cannot explain, I'll be glad to.

--Eco

I've read the article at Red Comrades now, and it does not refute that there was a famine caused by the collectivization in the Ukraine in 1932-33, but it does present a much lower estimates for the number of dead: "hundreds of tousands" - 2 millions. The article contains 4 very interesting paragraphs about the famine, but it's copyrighted, so we can't copy it into the text directly.

It does state that "There was indeed a famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s. It appears likely that hundreds of thousands, possibly one or two million, Ukrainians died -- the minority from starvation, the majority from related diseases",

"By general consensus, Stalin was partially responsible",

and "In this context, collectivization was more than a vehicle for a cheap and steady grain supply to the state. It was truly a "revolution from above," a drastic move towards socialism, and an epochal change in the mode of production. There were heavy casualties on both sides -- hundreds of thousands of kulaks (rich peasants) deported to the north, thousands of party activists assassinated. Production superseded politics, and many peasants were coerced rather than won to collective farms. Vast disruption of the 1932 harvest ensued (and not only in the Ukraine)."

When even the Red Comrades agree that there was a famine as a result of the collectivization, I think we can safely put something about it in the arictle. --Guppie

Actually, I gave you the wrong article and it was from the Village Voice not that specific site itself, heh.

Yeah, that was the one that presented a lower estimate. Still, a good article. I have a lot of this stuff just sitting around on my computer and on paper so it gets very confusing to be honest.

By the way, they said collectivization was partially responsible and yes, there were a couple of collectivization fuck-ups but none that caused as many deaths as the kulaks and nature itself did. I don't remember if the article mentions the the "Dust Bowl" crisis of 1932 or not. That right there can explain some of, if not the majority, of deaths from starvation.

Here's the article I should have given: http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html

It's from the PLP so you might have to cut through some political stuff to get to the heart of the six part work on the subject but they most definitely did their homework.

--Eco

--

It seems the discussion here is dead. So, when I get some time, I'm going to make a list of things I'd like to add to the Soviet Union history page that have not already be added. I'll post them here before I add them though and obviously anyone who would like to can contest anything there.

If, by any chance, the death of the discussion was MY fault perhaps by lack of direct involvement (just posting a link, or citing some text, etc.), understand that I didn't want to just brush everyone off by handing them a link. The truth is, I don't really have time to type everything I'd like to say, and I'm sure some of you can understand that. However, if you do read any of the articles, as I've said before, I'm more than happy to answer any questions that the articles could not.

--Eco

It's not dead: I have been reading your comments. Um, in general, if you make a good suggestion and no one chimes in with a me, too it means GO AHEAD and carry out your own suggestion. --Ed Poor

Eco, I'm sorry if I'm not responding quick enough to your comments, I do have a job to do ;-), and I'm reading up on the subject, the articles you mentioned also. Just have patience, in some weeks we should have made a better article together. --Guppie

-

Nah, don't worry about it man! You've probably got as much time as me, and I definitely understand. I just like to check in when I get like 10 minutes myself. That way, when I'm in a debate, I figure people still know I'm alive.

--Eco

Alright, I worked through the Soviet history section and set up a proposed version which can be seen in my profile. I have done my absolute best to support every claim we've discussed. I've also done my best to work it in, along with those of others, in a completely unbiased way. The best part was it barely took an 45 minutes. :)

--Eco <-- (It's in here)


 * Have you read Wikipedia's NPOV statement? I think you're leaning too hard on the "famine was a hoax" thing. Historians generally agree that Stalin confiscated food from Ukrainian farmers. If you put your version in, be prepared for either (A) a full revert from someone with less patience than me, or (B) a flurry of edits to restore balance. --Ed Poor

---

Yes, Ed. I read the NPOV statement my first day and I honestly do not see where I lean on one view of the Ukrainian famine over the other. Indeed, historians do generally agree that the Red Army confiscated food from Ukrainian peasants. Historians though, are -- generally -- people who spout off history instead of examining. It's one of those things that drives me insane about the subject. The majority of historians are also highly biased and pro-western. As a result, their ability to examine history is heavily clouded. If you need any example of this, western, anti-Soviet historians illustrate this point better than any.

Well, I've seen you do a fair job of editing in two opposing opinions. Go ahead and post your version of the text in question here (just that paragraph or two), and anything else you have problems with. I think we're making progress. This is probably a good way to proceed.

--Eco


 * Sorry, I don't have time to do that. Why not just stick in a few sentences or even a whole paragraph yourself, doing what you've seen me do: "a fair job of editing in two opposing opinions"? If you're willing to do this (Plan C), then I'd most likely be content to comment back here on the talk page -- without reverting.


 * Would you rather have a fish (eat for a day), or learn how to fish (eat for a lifetime)? ...to paraphrase Confucius --Ed Poor

--

Well it would help if you told me what the problem was. You've basically said "there is a problem with this paragraph" but you're not even willing to elaborate? C'mon...

--Eco

I figured the easiest thing to do was to post your version of the whole article. This lets people compare your version with the previous version (as by clicking here). -- Ed Poor

-

Sounds good to me. --Eco

-

'EDIT: The changes to the article were not nearly as extensive as I thought. This is my fault as I only skimmed over the article briefly. I will go ahead and make the minor changes and any complaints can (and should) be brought up here. No need for the below. --Eco'

Ok, if you click on my profile, you'll see that I have written a revised version of the History of the Soviet Union. I believe this better flows with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as opposed to the current one (which is good, but could be better).

I will wait 2 days or so (at least until the 17th of this month). If no one objects to my version, then I will go ahead and make the change. The last thing I want is another editing war, and I have done my best to give all sides of the story (better so than the current version, I believe). Although some may disagree, I assure you 100% that I have kept any politics, and the writing of this entirely separate to insure that Wikipedia's NPOV policy is maintained to the highest degree possible. Wikipedia has a very good record, compared to many other sites, of keeping a NPOV. Lets continue this.

Once again, the proposed version is in my profile. I believe it was actually changed to this quite a while back, but someone, I assume some sort of troll, edited into some deformed version of the original. It is possible I'm just remembering what happened wrong, though.

So anyway, take a look, tell me what you think. If no one gives any kind of indication they disagree in two days, please do not throw a fit when it is changed because you don't like the wording, or I missed something you think should be included. Calmly bring it here, and we'll discuss it.

Check it out! --Eco

Is the current version so flawed that you will just delete the contributions of several other Wikipedians? That ain't cool. Please edit this version. --mav

-

Maveric, no. The version in my profile was actually agreed upon before. Someone else has made changes without discussing them here, all I will be doing is reversing them. --Eco


 * Since when does each change have to go through a committee? What is your "profile"? Is there another version of the article somewhere? --mav

-

I didn't say it had to go through a committee. It's called courtesy. We seem to get into editing wars without it. My profile is what you get when you click on the little link attached to my username (at least I call it a profile). I'm not sure what you mean by another version. I suppose it's possible I'm looking at a different version. The one I'm viewing contains some alternate points of view though, so I am making the fairly logical assumption it is the exact same version I put so much work into before. By the way, this could just be me (hell, it's almost 4AM), but is there a reason you're being so hostile? Have I offended you in some way? I apologize ahead of time if I've done something wrong.

--Eco (that link leads to my "profile," or whatever you'd like to call it)


 * I just don't like it when some people are nonchalant about burying the work of others via what can only be classified as a revert (which did look like your original plan). Who in the world would think to look on your user page for the most current version of this article? All that contributors need know is where the edit link is and a few basic policies. Anyway, I got in a fight with a co-worker today (over a very similar issue!) so I am generally hostile - so please don't take it personal. --mav

Just started reading this and I find it really kind of silly. No concrete evidence that the gulags ever existed? How about http://www.sitesofconscience.org/gulag.html for starters. A discussion of the purges? Professor Riasanovsky's History of Russia is a good, basic place to start. By 1940, apart from Stalin, all of Lenin's original Politburo was gone. Yes, there were schisms at Lenin's death. I would also check out Fainsod: "The period of Yezhovshchina [NKVD under Nicholas Ezhov, 1936-1938] involved a reign of terror without parallel in Soviet history." And these are just the basics, Conquest or not ... Eco, I do not intend to convince you. I do not think I can. Frankly, I find your arguments more rhetorical than based in fact, and any source I bring up will either be classified as a Trotskyite or an anti-Soviet provocateur. For everyone else, though, let's have some solid evidence before we incorporate a revisionist history which contradicts the work of leading scholars in the field. Danny

-

Mav- I don't really care about other peoples work if it does not follow the NPOV policy. I have to withhold my opinions, while everyone weaves in theirs? I would hope not! Yet this has been the case with the Soviet history section on numerous occasions (although I'll be the first to admit progress has been made). I have flatly refused to be stepped on like that, and I think it has done only good for the Soviet history section. I will not weave my opinions into what I write or work on for this site, and to anyone incapable of doing the same, I would strongly suggest leaving. Many people who have done serious work on the Soviet history section have come here and we've talked things out, shared our opinions, etc. I obviously don't feel this should be required before every change, but than again, I don't feel that when someone makes an opinionated addition to the section, and I edit it, or revert it, I should be accused of doing something wrong.

You know, it's kind of funny when you stand back and look at it. I'm constantly revising things I've done work on so they flow better with the very policy I was yelled at for violating when I first came to this site. Well, here I am. Doing my best to enforce the policy that got me yelled at when I started with my own editing. These people can't do the same? If they don't care enough to discuss it, or even attempt to maintain a NPOV, than why should I care much at all for their work? I show people the same respect they show me. I don't think that's so wrong, do you? Also, I never said people should go to my profile, or whatever you'd like to call it, for the "latest version." I apologize again if you got that impression. I was actually just being nice enough to let people go and look over the version and see if they liked it, rather than, as you describe, "nonchalantly burying the work of others." :)

Danny-

''Just started reading this and I find it really kind of silly. No concrete evidence that the gulags ever existed? How about http://www.sitesofconscience.org/gulag.html for starters.'''

I've seen this site before, it's nothing new. This is a straw man fallacy though. I never denied the existence of labor camps. I merely disputed the grossly exaggerated numbers, most of which were originally set forward by western intelligence sources, and the Nazis (or their usually well known friends). In the case of Robert Conquest, it was his employment in IRD. IRD was given the specific task of purposely distributing false news stories about the condition of the Soviet Union to help stop it's foreign influence. Even if we strip away these prejudices and biases though, their claims still cannot, and do not, hold water.

''A discussion of the purges? Professor Riasanovsky's History of Russia is a good, basic place to start. By 1940, apart from Stalin, all of Lenin's original Politburo was gone. Yes, there were schisms at Lenin's death.''

...A good place to start? Hmmm, maybe you're the one that needs a "good place to start," eh? J. Arch Getty is perhaps one of the best (or at least better) sources on the subject of the purges, and Soviet history itself. As I remember, some of his work is a little longwinded. It's far from overwhelming though.

You tell me about "Lenin's" original Politburo like it was something fascinatingly new to you, and something I had never taken into consideration! Hey, even if that is the case, it's no big deal. Chapter 12 of Stalin and Yezhov: An Extra-Paradigmatic View does a very good job of explaining the "purge" of the "old Bolsheviks." That can be viewed here: http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/chap12.html It's in the middle of the book and all, so it might be a little rough to catch up on. I recommend the whole thing, if you have the time.

I would also check out Fainsod: "The period of Yezhovshchina [NKVD under Nicholas Ezhov, 1936-1938] involved a reign of terror without parallel in Soviet history." And these are just the basics, Conquest or not ...

I've flipped through it. I found it nothing special, new or eye opening, and you quoting it's tagline somehow doesn't give it any special appeal. Likewise though, I'll do some recommending of my own:

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/yezhov.html http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/nkvdinfo.html http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/beria.html

''Eco, I do not intend to convince you. I do not think I can. Frankly, I find your arguments more rhetorical than based in fact, and any source I bring up will either be classified as a Trotskyite or an anti-Soviet provocateur.''

Interesting that I'm the rhetorical one. Maybe you should try to find some sort of deep content in your own posts before you criticize mine for being rhetorical? I would bring up the fact that all you really did was state what you thought, and provided a few links to "back it up." Kind of funny though. I'm guilty of the same, so I won't dwell on that too much. In this case, the reason is simply that I'm giving you the same content and depth you gave me. Actually, I feel I'm giving you considerably more. Will you actually do anything with it, besides disagree? I doubt it, and I can't really blame you. Your view on this issue, even if you never thought much of it before, is the one that's threatened, not mine. Either way, it equalizes out.

For everyone else, though, let's have some solid evidence before we incorporate a revisionist history which contradicts the work of leading scholars in the field.

Ahh, but the burden of proof is not on me, it's on YOU. I am not the historical revisionist, you are. I never made the claim a completely ridiculous number of people died in Soviet labor camps, and then had next to no evidence to prove it, but the people you quote your figures and get your information from certainly did! So, in a way, I agree! Lets see YOUR evidence. All I have done is dispute the claims you support, which lack any real evidence.

By the way, Soviet history wasn't much of a field in the west until Robert Conquest and company came around, now was it? Isn't that interesting? They just got their foot in the door, in the earlier days of the field. Shame someone didn't slam it shut before they wormed the rest of their body in...

--Eco

What are you talking about and who is being hostile now? See the differences between the last version you touched and the current one here. What exactly is so wrong with the additions and modifications that the half dozen other contributors have done? Respect the work of others and work with this version using the version on your user page as a point of reference to add and modify this version. Also, if anything was lost since the last time you worked on this article then use the above diff to salvage that text. --mav

-

Alright, I'll make a few changes. Chances are they'll be gone in a few hours, but I'll make a couple. Don't tell me I'm not "respecting the work of others" though.

--Eco

-

In my attempt to set an example, here's a paragraph by paragraph explanation of my changes:

''The state relied heavily on controlling its citizens with the secret police. Already in December 1917, the Cheka was founded. Later it changed names to GPU, OGPU, MVD, NKVD and finally KGB. The secret police was responsible for finding any political dissidents and expelling them from the party or bringing them to trial for counter-revolutionary activities.''

This was changed mostly due to bad structure. I also expanded on things a bit.

''In the winter of 1922, at the end of the civil war, the sailors from the naval base on Kronstadt Island, who had been stalwart supporters of the Bolsheviks during the civil war revolted against the new regime. The Red Army crossed the ice over the frozen Baltic Sea and quickly crushed the Kronstadt Rebellion but Lenin's leadership realized it was time for a "strategic retreat" from hard-line Communism. ''

The only thing I changed here was "Lenin's leadership." Lenin himself realized the problem, but not all of his leadership were so capable (Trotsky, for example, set fourth a poor defense for his actions). Also changed "hard-line Communism" to "hard-line methods." "Communism" had little to do with the paragraph. Also expanded on it a bit.

''This led to the establishment of the New Economic Policy (NEP) which allowed for a brief and limited respite from the total control by the party over personal and economic life. Small private businesses were allowed to flourish and restrictions on political activity were somewhat eased. Perhaps the most notable aspect of this period was the conspicuous consumption by the few who managed to become wealthy. At the time, many in the west saw this as the beginning of the end of the "red menace."''

Just expanded a bit on this one.

''After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of Joseph Stalin, who led the Soviet Union until his death in 1953. Stalin was the supreme leader from 1929, when he ended the NEP and brought the entire economy under strict state control, until his death in 1953. Stalin replaced Lenin's market socialist "New Economic Policy" with a Five-Year Plan, which called for a highly ambitious program of heavy industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. The results of collectivization proved varried. Successful in some areas, disastrous in others. Some argue it even produced major famines in 1932-331, particularly in Ukraine. Collectivization led to a drop in the already low productivity of Russian farming, which did not regain the NEP level until 1940, or allowing for the further disasters of World War II, 1950.2 These statistics, and the actual existence of these famines is debated though. Some argue that the famines were generally a hoax. That collectivization was not responsible for millions of deaths and the actual amount of people who died of starvation was much lower and due to other causes.3 The 1932 dust bowl crisis which occurred not only in the USA, but also in India and the USSR, is commonly cited as one explanation.''

The first sentence of this paragraph is incorrectly worded... at best. Even if you believe Stalin was the worst dictator ever, to say he "gradually consolidated" his power is generally wrong. Much of the power he had already existed when he was voted (yes, that's right, not a typo) into his office (both state and party) after a fierce political battle. I also expanded on the first few sentences, and did a little re wording. The rest looks good.

''In spite of early breakdowns and failures, the first Five-Year Plan achieved amazing results. Russia, an inert sleeping giant before 1914, now became industrialized at an unbelievable speed, far surpassing Germany's pace of industrialization in the nineteenth century and Japan's earlier in the twentieth.''

This was a paragraph someone deleted and I restored. I removed part of something which could be viewed as propaganda though. "The heroic struggle of the common people" or something to that effect.

''On June 22nd 1941 Hitler broke the pact and invaded the Soviet Union (see Operation Barbarossa). At first, Stalin refused to believe that the Germans had invaded and issued no orders to defend the union. Meanwhile, the generals were afraid to act independently for fear of being purged by Stalin's terror machine. However, new evidence shows Stalin held meetings with a variety of senior Soviet government and military figures on the first day of the attack.5 This could explain why the USSR was at first ineffective against the advancing Nazi forces. But, once Stalin and the government recovered from the initial shock, the Soviet Red Army put up fierce resistance.''

This poor paragraph was butchered by the person before me. They removed a number of details I had included. They didn't even bother to reformat it. Thus, I felt a revert was appropraite (they contributed nothing to it anyway).

''It is however documented that Germany received notice of a planned attack by the Soviet Union. Some Russian military men as well have recently stated that Stalin's Red Army was in offensive position and ready to strike Germany. Stalin did not allow the thus surprised offensively positioned Red Army to retreat, and large numbers of soldiers were surrounded and taken as prisoners of war. The Germans reached the outskirsts of Moscow in December, but were stopped by an early winter and a Soviet counter-offensive. At the battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43, after sacrificing an estimated 1 million men, the Red Army was able to regain the initiative of the war. With military equipment aid of their allies, the Soviet forces were able to regain their lost territory and push their over-stretched enemy back to Germany itself.''

This is a bold faced lie and a piece of old propaganda that has no place here. There are so many conflicting versions that even if you wanted to believe it, it would be hard. Regardless, I've done my best to incorporate this "theory."

''The Germans reached the outskirsts of Moscow in December, but were stopped by an early winter and a Soviet counter-offensive. At the battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43, after sacrificing an estimated 1 million men, the Red Army was able to regain the initiative of the war. With military equipment aid of their allies, the Soviet forces were able to regain their lost territory and push their over-stretched enemy back to Germany itself.''

I actually separated this from the above. I changed "sacrificing" as it sounded somewhat overdramatic. The bottom sentence also says much more about the lend-lease program than is true.

Although these expulsions of population of eastern Germany and the illegal takeover of land have been documented for decades, these facts have been downplayed by Stalin's Allies for decades and are scarcely known.

If that isn't some minor form of propaganda, I don't know what is.

''Later Soviet leaders such as Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev were unable to consolidate power as Stalin had done, and served more as functionaries of the party rather than as dictators. ''

Yet another sign whoever wrote this doesn't know what they're talking about. The programs, which went under various names ("anti-Stalinism" and "collectivization" are two) were specifically designed to increase their control over Soviet affairs. I changed my original version too though, and tried to incorporate what was said here.

Alright, so there are my changes. Now, I think I'll forgo another NPOV rant, and simply state that I would also prefer not to have my work burried.

So, anyway, have fun!

--Eco

Let the fun begin: That's it for now. Been a long while since I touched any of this stuff, but it is fun to get back into it. Thanks for the challenge. Danny
 * 1) My sources have Kronstadt was in March 1921, not 1922. The reasons for this uprising by "stalwart" supporters of the Revolution are also worth mentioning,
 * 2) The significance of the NEP is ignored. So is its significance in the dispute between Trotsky and Bukharin, Stalin's position, and how this helped him consolidate his own faction and defeat his rivals.
 * 3) It says: Stalin had a superior reputation as a revolutionary, "devoted Bolshevik," and Lenin's "right hand man." Lots of fanfare, but it ignores his position as secretary general of the party, his attitudes toward the Soviet state vs. world revolution, the NEP vs. the 1st FYP (relaxation of communism vs. forced industrialization), etc.
 * 4) The first Five Year Plan should mention forced collectivization, rejection by the kulaks (like them or not, they were not happy), massive population transfers to the east, etc.
 * 5) Russia was industrially self-sufficient prior to WWI and small industry flourished during the NEP. Yes, industrialization proceeded at a rapid pace, but what did happen to agriculture? Why was Russia transformed from an exporter to an importer of grain? Why is forced industrialization such an ideal?
 * 6) Even Getty doesn't deny the purges--he questions their extent and seems more understanding of Ezhev. I am still looking up some of his later writings on the topic though.
 * 7) The nationality question--yes, the 1920s were a good time for Soviet minorities. The 1940s though were an entirely different story. Volga Germans, Chechens, Kalmyks, Koreans, Crimean Tatars ... Population transfers are never a good thing, even if Stalin imposes them.
 * 8) The Second World War caught the Soviet Union unprepared? Negotiations between Molotov and Ribbentrop had been going on for months, and Stalin knew that Germany was about to invade Poland--they divided the country between them.

("amazing", "unbelievable" are blatantly p.o.v.)
 * I think they were hyperbole rather than POV. Mintguy
 * They're both. ("far surpassing" would be merely hyperbolic).

-

''My sources have Kronstadt was in March 1921, not 1922. The reasons for this uprising by "stalwart" supporters of the Revolution are also worth mentioning,''

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/izvestiia_krons1921.html

"Tuesday, March 8th, 1921 - Bolsheviks fire the first shots at Kronstadt"

''The significance of the NEP is ignored. So is its significance in the dispute between Trotsky and Bukharin, Stalin's position, and how this helped him consolidate his own faction and defeat his rivals.''

I didn't know you wanted to go that deep with it. I don't think the significance of the NEP is ignored at all. It had political significance, yes. As for it's over all role in things, I might disagree.

It says: Stalin had a superior reputation as a revolutionary, "devoted Bolshevik," and Lenin's "right hand man." Lots of fanfare, but it ignores his position as secretary general of the party, his attitudes toward the Soviet state vs. world revolution, the NEP vs. the 1st FYP (relaxation of communism vs. forced industrialization), etc.

It doesn't ignore it, it was never included to begin with. If you want to include that Stalin was secretary general, go ahead. I personally think most of what you say would go better in Wikipedia's entry on Stalin (which I should probably check up on). The first Five Year Plan should mention forced collectivization, rejection by the kulaks (like them or not, they were not happy), massive population transfers to the east, etc.

Ahh, yes. The kulaks, who I suspect burned more grain than the Soviets ever did. Please, go ahead and include them. I think I actually meant to (or did at some point).

''Russia was industrially self-sufficient prior to WWI and small industry flourished during the NEP. Yes, industrialization proceeded at a rapid pace, but what did happen to agriculture? Why was Russia transformed from an exporter to an importer of grain? Why is forced industrialization such an ideal?''

This is dependent on how you view "self-sufficient." It was self-sufficient enough to support a small number of people, in the cities, maybe. Not the entire population of Russia though. As I cited as one point of view in the article, the dust bowl crisis hit Russia as hard, if not harder than it hit the United States and India. Furthermore, the kulaks you mentioned earlier had a wonderful time parading around the Ukraine and such as bandits. Usually they would just burn or loot the grain, though if they had time, they would try to burn the farms too, as I understand it.

''Even Getty doesn't deny the purges--he questions their extent and seems more understanding of Ezhev. I am still looking up some of his later writings on the topic though.''

No, he does not deny the purge. He explains the purge mostly took place in the party, and was not some kind of campaign of mass execution, but was merely explusion from the party. Read: "Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938" This is where most of my sources on the purges come from (though not all).

''The nationality question--yes, the 1920s were a good time for Soviet minorities. The 1940s though were an entirely different story. Volga Germans, Chechens, Kalmyks, Koreans, Crimean Tatars ... Population transfers are never a good thing, even if Stalin imposes them.''

I have something on this that may be of interest. I'm going to have to find it, then I'll give you a more comprehensive reply.

''The Second World War caught the Soviet Union unprepared? Negotiations between Molotov and Ribbentrop had been going on for months, and Stalin knew that Germany was about to invade Poland--they divided the country between them.''

I would say it caught them in a grey area between prepared and clueless.

''That's it for now. Been a long while since I touched any of this stuff, but it is fun to get back into it. Thanks for the challenge.''

Well, if you want to keep up with this section, you're going to be touching on a lot more of it. ;)

--Eco

-

"("amazing", "unbelievable" are blatantly p.o.v.)
 * I think they were hyperbole rather than POV. Mintguy
 * They're both. ("far surpassing" would be merely hyperbolic)."

I agree. I don't think they're quite as hyperbolic as you make them out to be, but I still agree.

--Eco

It is a fact that some people do cite the Dust Bowl as one possible reason for the famine. My personal POV thinks this is hogwash but we are here to report the different major views on a subject. This is one of those views - it is cited and written in a neutral tone. Therefore it is valid to have this infomation here. Same thing for the other removals. Please tweak the current text to improve it but don't delete information. --mav

I'me sorry mav but youre wrong the wiew that "the famines were not manmade but a hoax" is the opinion of a small minority and rejected by the big majority of historians.

As the Neutral point of view policy article states.

''Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a very popular view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present various competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though the content of a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.''

This article as presently writen gives the hopelesly misleading impression that there is any serious dispute as to whether the famines in the USSR were man-made or not. There is a small minority of people who believe that the hollocaust was a hoax, but should equal space be given to that POV?, I think not. As far as I'me concerned people who claim that the famines in the USSR "were a hoax" or "the result of natural causes", are every bit as vile as hollocaust deniers. It should be made very clear in the article that these are the opinions of a small minority. Perhaps a seperate article should be created called something like Famine sceptics or something


 * Then please idicate so in the article next to the text in question.

IMO the amount of space given is not excessive - but a small trimming might be in order along with some more qualification. --mav