Talk:Red Terror/Archive 1

Ordered by Lenin
Was the Red Terror ordered by Lenin, or by the other members of the Bolshevik leadership? Was Lenin incapacitated at the time? I am interested in the degree to which Lenin was personally responsible. Kent Wang 08:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I gathered, the (original declaration of the Red Terror):

"We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible." 154.5.39.80 06:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with first paragraph
Currently, the first paragraph of this article claims that the assasination of Moisei_Uritsky was simultaneous with Fanya Kaplan's attempted assasination of Lenin, and, in my reading of it at least, implies that both incidents were perpetrated by Fanya Kaplan.

However, the Moisei_Uritsky page claims he was assasinated on August 17th by Leonid Kanegeiser. According to this article and the Lenin article the attempt on Lenin's life was two weeks later on August 30th.

I don't really feel qualified to make any changes to this article, but the first para does seem to lack consistency with other pages on here. Tasiel 12:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I will try to correct this as time allows.Biophys 14:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should be divided to several articles
I think Red Terror in Russia, Estonia and Hungary should be made as separate articles, because all of them are different events, although there is significant similarity. It says in the beginning: "The Red Terror was a campaign of mass arrests, deportations, and executions targeted against counterrevolutionaries in Russia during the Russian Civil War." This is more or less correct, but this is Russia in 1918, not Estonia in 1940s. Any thoughts? Biophys 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently the article is a mess. The Estonial part is unreferenced. The hungarian part does not say whether the term "vörös terror" was used at these times. It is unclear whether these pieces deserve separate articles. Russian Red Terror was an official term. Other countries may well be political epithets, possibly directly borrowed from Bolshevik phraseology or possibly introduced postfactum, in modern times. Am an not an expert here, these are just my suspicions based on an experience of observation how easily people use the same word in other contexts for political purposes. The first and foremost thing is to have a well-written and referenced texts about the corresponding histories, not to define more usages of a political buzzword. See my dialog: User_talk:Gubbubu.  `'mikka 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I partly agree. The Estonian part definitely looks like POV fork. Everything should be sourced. I will try to improve this article later.Biophys 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Red Terror (Hungary) should be a separate article, just as Red Terror (Spain). The Estonian part, if no references found, probably should be removed. I will check sources.Biophys 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not address my major concern, which is expanded further: the Red Terror (Spain) article gives no hints who and when used the term "red terror" in application to the events in question. Once again, it must be clearly established whether it is a well-known term applied to the events in question, whether the term was used by supporters or the opponents of the terror or it was the later coinage by historians. You cannot introduce terms arbitrarily. `'mikka 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. As an explanation of my concern, as you may know people like to slap political epithets retroactively and overgeneralized. Examples of abused terms are "holocaust", "ethnic cleansing", "genocide". (It required a serios effor to rid wikipedia of "silicone holocaust", "Native American Holocaust", etc.) I have no doubts that the term "revolutionary terror" was quite popular in Spain or Hungary. The question is whether it is a standard way to term it as "Red Terror", and if yes, there should be very serious scholarly sources to make it an article title to address the corresponding period in the history of the country. `'mikka 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are exactly right. That was originally official term only for Russia. But then it was applied by journalists and writers to anything. Yes, I found publications claiming Red Terror in Estonia and during French Revolution. So, this should be probably reflected in the articles.Biophys 23:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that some scholarly sources consider Red Terror as an important turning event in the world history, the first of numerous Communist terrors which consumed many countries later, from Eastern Europe to Asia nad Africa. This certainly should be mentioned here.Biophys 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Problematic edits
My recent citation of Richard Pipes on the Communist terror has been reverted twice by user Strothra. That was done without any explanation and justification. I would appreciate if he explained his reverts. Well, I am not going to begin an RR war. Instead, I will work seriously to improve this article, which is not in a good shape at the moment.Biophys 03:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While Pipes is a historian, your addition to the article contributed nothing encyclopedic. It added only vague opinion and interpretation, not research. Further, it was completely off-topic as it placed under the "Purpose of the Soviet Red Terror." Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Also note that much of Pipes' research is now quite dated and there are many newer and insightful studies that make far greater usage of documentation not examined in his works. --Strothra 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is completely appropriate to include opinions of notable historians, such as Richard Pipes in WP. Such opinions are cited in many WP articles. If you think  Pipes is wrong, you are welcome to add alternative opinions supported by reliable sources here, per WP:NPOV. It is appropriate to cite opinions about Red Terror in article about Red Terror. This has nothing to do with soapbox. I cite a scholarly book, not a newspaper article.Biophys  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Citation of Richard Pipes has been deleted again on the following grounds: "the article about red terror, not about Pipes view". First of all, this is not simply someone's published opinion, this is one of conclusions made by a prominent researcher who dedicated his life to study of Communist systems. Obviously, it is appropriate to cite expert opinions about Communist Terror in article about Communist Terror. Once again, if you think that citing Pipes is POV, you are welcome to add alternative opinions supported by reliable sources, per WP:NPOV. But I am very forthcoming and can cite myself several opinions/conclusions by experts, instead of one. That is not a problem, since there are numerous scholarly sources on this subject.Biophys 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Although it is an opinion it is notable opinion based on facts and helps to understand the concept better. If you have any other opinions contradicting this one, please feel free to add them to the article. Thus I have restored it for now. Suva Чего? 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * there are tons of books written about red terror. We need a coherent text describing events not sequence of citations of opinions and speculations. Whoever Pipes was, wikipedia needs facts, not lengthy citations of witty but biased historical comparisons from an obvious political enemy. The main point was already made in the first paragraph: Pipes says that violence is inherent in Bolshevik theory and politics. OK. No one argues with this. The whole revolution thing was about violence and carnage of political enemies. `'Míkka 14:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mikka is correct. The article must be encyclopedic.  The only way to do that is to address the historical nature of the event - the who, what, when, where, how, why.  Counterfactuals and lengthy quotes that are vague and tell us nothing do not add to the article. Just because Pipes said something does not make it encyclopedic.  --Strothra 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I must remind you that we all must follow WP:NPOV policy which say the following:
 * "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

One can not suppress alternative positions here by deleting opinions supported by reliable sources. What I am using in not just a reliable source; this is a scholarly book written by a notable historian Richard Pipes. By the same token, opinions of other notable experts can be represented here as well.Biophys 14:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV has nothing to do with this. Pipes' views are certainly not alternative views to the mainstream.  The point of this matter is content.  You are not incorporating Pipes' research, but rather his opinion.  This article is not about opinions of the Red Terror, it's about the Red Terror itself.  What happened, who did it, why it happened, how it was taken out, where it occurred, etc.  That information is what is encyclopedic. The conclusions you are including are being done in order to make your own point, thus tuning Wiki into your own personal soapbox and violating WP:NPOV.--Strothra 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you should read this again: "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" (WP:NPOV) It does not tell "facts". It tells "views". I agree that Pipes conclusions are "mainstream". But deletion of mainstream opinion is even worse, since mainstream views must be represented with a higher weight in WP per WP:NPOV. But I did not promote my opinion here. Obviously, this is conclusion by Pipes, not by me. To make this absolutely clear, I even cited him directly rather than providing my summary of his view(s). Well, then I must also cite directly other authors, to avoid your unfounded accusations that I am promoting my views.Biophys 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I am not going to do any RR warring here. Let's be more productive. I will work to expand this article and fairly represent the facts as well as various scholarly opinions on this subject, in agreement with WP:NPOV.Biophys 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DICK, experienced editors know the policies. I made my point already, you simply refuse to understand it correctly. --Strothra 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look. WP:DICK says: "This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Meta-Wiki users but may not have wide support. This is not policy...". What I am telling about is official WP policy. It says:
 * "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

So, let's follow this policy exactly. WP:NPOV says: "This is non-negotiable". So be it.Biophys 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, I made a compromise version. Main idea of the cited statement by Pipes is that Red Terror and Marxism are related. He may be right or wrong, but that is what he is telling.Biophys 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian Red Terror

 * (moved from talk pages)

Please provide the historical quotations that confirm that the events were called "Red Terror", i.e., that it is not a neologism of modern researchers. `'mikka 15:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Serch in the google for "vörösterror" or "vörös terror":, but the expression is used from the very early period of the Horthy era. The fact is that even Lukács used it in 1920 in his qouted essay The social hinterland of white terror:
 * ("Mi a vörös terror? A hatalomra jutott proletárosztály el­szánt, erőszakra is kész akaratának intézményes formája avégből, hogy a szocializmushoz vezető út akadályait (ellenforradalom, szabotázs, korrupció, lánckereskedés stb.) eltaka­rítsa a maga útjából. A proletárdiktatúra igazi célja az építés / what means
 * "what is red terror? The validation of the will of the proletariat grabbed the power to the effect clearing off the road to socialism - fully with barriers: counter-revolution, sabotage, corruption" [etc.].

But you can find a lot of quotations, e.g. ; ; ;, ; I think this is more than enough. Naturally, under the time of Rákosi- and Kádár-dictature, it was a quite "prohibited topic"; so in the sources written between 1945 and 1990, you won't find this expression I guess. But I think you can find the expression in "The black book of communism", too (I'm not sure; cause I haven't read yet). And I don't understand what do you mean when saying "it is not the neologism of modern researchers". I think a modern lexikon must follow the science of history and we must not be fixated at historans of ancient ages. ♥ ♥ ♥ : Gubb   ✍  2007. May 4 16:41 (CEST) 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please keep in mind this is not a personal question made out of curiosity or doubt. In addition to description of the events, you must clearly describe and refer the usage of the expression in the article. A separate article is also a good idea. `'mikka 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You write: Naturally, under the time of Rákosi- and Kádár-dictature, it was a quite "prohibited topic". I fail to see why "naturally prohibited"  Red Terror (i.e., elimination of enemies of worker class) was A Good Thing from the point of view of communists. `'mikka 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to communists there are two kinds of terror: double-plus-good "revolutional terror" and double-minus-not-good "white terror". But despite of this, Red Terror was a prohibited topic. You weren't able to say "June 26: Szamuely killed 9 men in Ujpest", you had to say that instead "There were local conflicts at ... and ..., but the red power solved them effectively". And so on (it is familiar for me: communist pov pushers editing, "correcting facts" and "poving" here in English Wikipedia with the exactly same terminology). And of course you weren't able to Szamuely hanged mercantiles because they didn't want to pay him certain sum of money (yes: this is simple extortion or robbing, as you like - of course "it couldn't happened during a Soviet power, no way"). I think you know what I mean: euphemism, half-justice, and recolourintg facts. And in Kadar-era - "the most joyful bunk", if you know what I mean - what based on the consolidation and living together with "enemies" of communism (Kádár said "who is not against us, is with us" referring to Rakosi's famous Bible-paraphrase "The one who is not with us is against us"). So it was comfortless to the system reminding people there were once - and twice and three times - a red terror: it was quite enough hard for Kadar to make his image "the benignant grandfather who reformed communism, stopped the Rákosi-terror and gives the folk bread what costs 3.60 Ft. (so cheap, you know)". Communism is good, communism is peace, communism is heaven, communism equals progressivism - so the Rákosi terror had to be a bad, but one-time deflection - and if people spoke about that communism was terror between 1918 and 1919, communism wasd terror between 1947 and 1956 (what's more sad communism was terror between 1956 and 1970)? You see this is a big cognitive dissonance and the simplest kadarist solving of that is choking. So I think you won't find a school history book written between 1960 and 1989 what would use the expression "red terror" or would speak about Lenin boys more then  in one sentence. One of the reasons of this is that what I said. Gubbubu 07:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What you write is interesting. You seem to say that while in Russia ideologists were not ashamed of the term "Red Terror", in Hungary it was different. Like I wrote, this is NOT my personal curiosity. The goal is to improve the article. therefore I would like to see (in the article) the following info (supplied with reputable references)


 * Was the term 'Vörösterror' used during the period of terror? (I know that the term 'Vörös' was in use to imply 'revolutionary', like, 'Vörös katonák')
 * If the term was abandoned afterwards, why? (quoted opinions)
 * If the term is used now, since when? Is there any opposition to its use today?
 * Please give Hungarian versions of various specific historical terms like "Lenin Boys" or "requiration patrols" (I guess you meant "requisition patrols")
 * Once again, please don't waste your time in the talk pages. We don't have a disagreeent. Just work with the article. Thank you, `'Miikka 15:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a historical linguist, and I don't think a term in itself is so interesting in this article. But I can say that:
 * 1) I don't know whether "vörösterror" was used, but "terror", "revolutional terror" surely was (in the hungarian article you can read some quote). It is hard to say, because we don't have many documents from that time. The era around 1918 and 1920 was so chaotic, bloody and "acute" (world war, revolution, romanian occupation), so I think men rather done history then labouring out historical terminology (but George Lukács in an article I mentioned to you used the expression "red terror"). You see, that is not sure at all there are exact answers to your questions, mainliy if you want indisputable references, they are too exact and probably requiring original research.
 * 2) Like above;
 * 3) Like above. I don't know about serious opposition of the term, I think even communist historians (if there are any nowadays) don't deny the fact, quarrels between hungarian historians rather happen in more particular, but politically serious things (number of victims: how many was, was white terror "more terroristic" than red terror or red terror was "more terroristic", was red terrorism a progressive, humanist, moral movement because bad white terrorists inhibited poor communists, what was before what: the chicken or the egg, etc.)
 * 4) Hungarian analogons of the expression can be given easily, I will do it. Yes, I meant that. Thx for correcting. Gubbubu 08:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point about the hungarian part. It states that red terror happened during the Hungarian Soviet RepueenFblic. I believe that the term here would be Hungarian Soviet Republic, but since I don't know a word of hungarian, I'd rather leave the edit to someone who knows anything about the topic. Thanks in advance! 141.76.40.139 07:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the article is still seriously biased. In Hungary during the Soviet Republic there was no red terror to speak of (after the Great War, when many people became simply barbaric and many men had weapons, 500 and odd executions, may be unjust, but such number is very low. The gendarmie killed many more people from the collapse of the army of the Monarchy to 21 March 1919). Kun had to explain himself to Lenin for the lack of repressions. Even the murderous trainy officers (cadets) of the coup d'etat of July were pardonned (mainly for foreign policy reasons). If you read the extremely biased book of Váry (afterall, what do you expect in 1922? - as if you expected Goebbels to write an objective report on Hitler. It was an untouchable subject until 1945 - about 1918-19 nobody could write objectively, either throwing mud, or nothing. Also, did you read the reference to Kodolányi? 1944... Do you expect an objective account from that year?), it is clear, that the executions took place where there were anti-government revolts. It could be argued that the revolts had basis, but not that the executions did not. The Hungarian Soviet Republic was surprisingly soft in the period, compared to either other revolutions or counter-revolutions.

As to the other subject: it was called red terror in Hungarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, if to summarize your discussion, Hungarian Red Terror belongs here. That was a consensus opinion, and I agree here too. Then, such sudden and unjustified deletion of text is not appropriate and contradicts official WP:NPOV policy.02:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical significance of Red Terror
We did not write here about notability of this phenomenon. Julius Martov have written in this regard: "The beast has licked hot human blood. The man-killing machine is brought into motion... But blood breeds blood... We witness the growth of the bitterness of the civil war, the growing bestiality of men engaged in it." (cited from "Black book", page 736). That was an event of great significance, because it has shown an example to many future terror campaigns that folowed in Russia, China, and other countres (one can provide supporting sources of course).Biophys 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dzerdzinsky said about Red Terror : "Our enemies are now suppressed and are in the kingdom of the shadows." (book by George Seldes, You Can't Print That! The Truth Behind the News 1918 to 1928., Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2004, ISBN 1-41793-909-5). Seldes himself said that "The terror is in the mind and marrow of the present generation [of Russians] and nothing but generations of freedom and liberty will ever root it out.".Biophys 04:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Red terror in other contries
Someone recently included materials about Red Terror in China. I checked this out, and yes, a reliable secondary source (Black Book of Communism) says (page 523): "The Red Terror in Beijing caused approximately 1,700 deaths..." and so on. It is specifiaclly applied to terror campaign in the late 1960th. See also page 482: "Alain Roux's term "Red Terror" app;ies, especially to the year 1951. Another scholarly book by Christopher Andrew and Mitrokhin ("The world was going our way", page 389) said that Taraki in Afganistant practicised Red Terror (it cays exactly "Red Terror", I can cite if needed). Hence, such materials can be present in this article.Biophys 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I really do not see any reason to repeatedly delete materials about Red Terror in other countries as Mikallai does. Such campaigns can be briefly mentioned here, which does not preclude any separate and more detailed articles. Let's try to find some consensus.Biophys 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't "delete" materiaal. the material is one mouse click away. This article is about Soviet red terror. Please see Summary style about places where summaries are appropriate. Other "red terors" are from "see also" category. `'Míkka 01:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, no POV forks here!
A new reference about Pipes just has been included. If this author has something to tell about Red Terror (which could be different from the cited opinion by Pipes), it belongs here. But if author tells something about Pipes, it belongs to article about Pipes.Biophys 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It provides context. ref only because it is "likely to be challenged". ref can be removed of course, if this is not the case.Anonimu 18:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean the following. It is perfectly fine to represent here "pro-Communist" and "anti-Communist" views on Red Terror, in standard "pro" and "contra" style. In fact, some Communist views on Red Terror are already presented in the beginning of this article. But we are not going to include a long discussion about Richard Pipes political views, professional qualification, etc. in this article as completely irrelevant and described in another article. You wrote that he was "an anti-communist". I will write how many books did he published on Russian history and how many awards did he received. Do not you see where this leads? Such things indeed do not belong here.Biophys 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, "pro-Communist" and "anti-Communist" views on Red Terror are identical. Lenin tells that Red terror is absolutely neccessary, and Richard Pipes confirmes: yes, Lenin was right, it was indeed neccessary for communists to stay in power. What differs is their moral values.Biophys 19:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Communist views are clearly identified as such, it is normal for the anti-communist view to be also. The claim the bolshevics had no popular support is certainly an unorthodox view.Anonimu 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, not exactly, since in today's world (16 years after Communism died a well-deserved death), an anti-Communist POV is standard and neutral, while a Communist one is an anachronistic aberration in league with absolute monarchism or flat-earthism. Biruitorul 06:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wel,, like i'd believe you...Anonimu 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * O'K, it will be easier to fix than to discuss. It is well known that bolshevics had no significant popular support. They only got a quarter of the vote at the height of their popularity in the elections. They were also unpopular among industrial workers. Massive strikes by Russian workers were "mercilessly" (as Lenin said) suppressed during Red terror - is it missing here? Well, this should be included.Biophys 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How come they got in power then? There were not supported by a foreign state's army and they weren't part of the old ruling class to have access to vast resources.Anonimu 21:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was, as Trotsky said, a revolution "by telegraph" - in many areas, the Soviets didn't hold power but said they did, issuing decrees by telegraph, and opposition melted away. Biruitorul 06:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This means those guys were frekin stupid. Thanks God commies come to power to spread education amongst the masses.Anonimu 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A decisive and military-organized Party does not need much popular support to came to power (2% of population is enough), if they operate in a Failed state ("weak link"). All they needed is a few thousands of fanatics who can organize Red Terror. That is what Lenin realized and implemented. Of course, that was not easy. After the October Revolution, no one in the West believed that bolsheviks can survive for long.Biophys 21:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And yet they could conquer the world largest country (or second, i'm not sure if the britannic empire was larger). The Red Army was probably made of Dragos.Anonimu 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Cheka shoot those Red Army Dragos (just people like you or me) "like dogs" when they deserted in hundreds of thousands.Biophys 23:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But these Cheka agents also had to be quite numerous and well trained to do it, cause desserters take the guns with them and can oppose fierce resistance.Anonimu 00:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Hence the Pitchfork Uprising, Tambov Rebellion, Makhno, and others. You probably have no idea that Russian Civil War was not between Reds and Whites, but mostly between Reds and "Greens", that is civilians (based on the numbers of victims). But Cheka was represented by Internal Troops with guns and chemical weapons, plus Red Army (thouse who fought for whatever reason, such as not to be shot themselves).Biophys 00:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the Reds were some real muthafuckers... they fought the whites, greens, anarchists, ethnic nationalist, czechs, brits, yankees, japs, frenchies, romanians etc and they won. they almost eliminated poles, but shit happens and they had to settle with an armistice. nevertheless, that's a great lesson on how to defend your ideals.Anonimu 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu, I hope you're just posturing with that comment, because if it's really your opinion (e.g. that failing to completely exterminate the Poles falls under the category of "shit happens"), that would make you not simply a political radical but an open advocate of mass murder. This is one of the most disturbing things I have ever heard said by anyone on the Wiki or anywhere else for that matter, and I think I may be so bold as to say that you owe us at least an explanation. K. Lásztocska 18:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So, that is your level of discussion. You believe that killing innocent civilians is "defending ideals". I have nothing to answer here. Let God be your judge.Biophys 03:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think God judges oppinions. After all, he gave us free will.Anonimu 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oy vey, while I agree that Biophys is attempting to use the article as a soapbox and not adding encyclopedic info to it, I do think that Anonimu is simplifying those events far beyond reason. Please read a book, suggested titles and authors: Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy; Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution; Paul Milyukov, The Russian Revolution; Alexander Rabinowitch, The Bolsheviks Come to Power; Rex Wade, The Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian Civil War; Evan Mawdsley, The Russian Civil War; Anton Denikin, The Russian Turmoil; Iurii Got'e, Time of Troubles. --Strothra 06:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited my above comments to reflect recent changes in the article made by Biophys that are substantial improvements. --Strothra 06:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What simplifying? I just noted that the guy cited is a well known anti-communist.Anonimu 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is someone who vigorously defended the murder of 200 unarmed civilians, so him calling victims of the Red Terror collateral damage in the process of "defending ideals" is hardly surprising. Biruitorul 06:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When border guards point guns at you and tell not to pass the border, you fuckin stop. If you don't, you're virtually commiting suicide.Anonimu 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The utter moral depravity of that statement is chilling, and I am shocked to read it on Wikipedia. However, for the record, democracies don't act that way. If one unarmed Mexican were killed crossing into the US, much less 200, the uproar would be tremendous and the US would likely pay reparations. But the Soviet Union wasn't a normal country; it was the epicenter of a demented ideology, determined to spread it round the world, no matter the cost (and the cost was, and continues to be, astronomical). Biruitorul 02:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, we all know you're very far from being objective. Contrary to what some may say, rules are not made to be broken.Anonimu 10:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No human being, myself and yourself included, ever can be 100% objective, so that comment is fairly meaningless. K. Lásztocska 11:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, in Soviet Union many things were suicide. For example owning a farm. Suva Чего? 13:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I invite you to pass the US-Mexico border without any document and continue to walk no mather what the border guards say.Anonimu 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? If I depart from the U.S. and the U.S. (not Mexican) border guard shoots, the guys quite obviously should run into immense problems. Colchicum 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wanna bet? who volunteers?Anonimu 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, God has given us free will and doesn't judge us here, but certainly will do that there. Be patient. Colchicum 16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As about fools and "fool-scale discussion", I would like to borrow this citation from page of TDC:
 * Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. -Patrick Henry. Biophys 19:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How right he is. I'm glad you acknowledge it. ;)Anonimu 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, please stop feeding the troll and restrict discussion solely to article edits and content. --Strothra 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is clearly a work of bourgeois propaganda designed to besmirch Lenin's name. I am not denying that the Red Terror happened, or that a handful of people died at the hands of communists. But the language of the article is designed to make the reader side with the dead capitalists rather than the brave workers who were trying to emancipate themselves from wage slavery. Yet this article makes it seemed as if those killed were innocent. When in reality the "victims" of the red terror were criminals under the former aristrocratic rule. And lastly your final argument that killing that many is so horrible and inhuman, such talk is simply foolish. What are a handful dead compared to millions of living? You could say these "victims" died for a greater good. Of course thinking so logically would make me "immoral" according to your invisible man in the sky, your beloved god. (75.74.193.101 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Can I please add a "ur mom" joke here now? :) Suva Чего? 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I wasn't logged on when I posted that, sorry about that. But my point stands, the language in the article is designed to steer the reader to believe that the Bolsheviks basically went around killing anyone that looked at them the wrong way. Furthermore you cannot tie in ethics to politics. Ethics would be all well and good if humans were not the naturally violent beings that we are, the sad thing is that our species only responds to violence and bloodshed. The only way to free Russia from the aristrocrats and the capitalists was to round them up and shot them, do you expect the Bolsheviks to simply as their sworn enemies to leave the country? Or better yet, just don't bother them for awhile? (Demigod Ron 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
 * So what you basically are saying that the bolsheviks didn't go around killing anyone that looked at them the wrong way but they first rounded up everyone who looked at them wrong way and then shot them? Suva Чего? 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jokes aside, the whole joke is that Bolsheviks first killed off aristocrates and capitalists, then started killing who looked at them the wrong way, and then proceeded to killing just in case, and finished frantically killing each other. `'Míkka 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On another note (jokes aside) after just reading the article, I find the article to be NPOV compliant. The text Demigod Ron presented is point of view and such point of view is already in article and finely sourced. I do admit the overall tone forms to be negative, but hell, how can you write article about mass murders of MILLIONS of people in positive tone. Suva Чего? 22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Mass murder" is a subjective phrase. The Red Terror served two purposes, 1. to purge the old oppressive classes from Russia, and 2. to retaliate against the murder of Uritsky and the attempted murder of Lenin. Therefore the red terror was as justified as the American invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. (Demigod Ron 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
 * To replace one oppressive force with other oppressive force while killing thousands innocent people. Criminals also think that when they steal something and police captures them, then they are innocent and police are the bastards so this must be revenged. Truth is, some people decided to replace other people from the top and they used violence and terror as method and Marxist bubble as excuse. Suva Чего? 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying that aristrocrats and capitalists are innocent? So oppressing the masses is not a crime is it? What about murder? When Urisky was murdered how were the Bolsheviks sepposed to responds? Do you not believe in retribution? Should crimes simply go unpunished? If the Bolsheviks stood by after Urisky's death, they would have been eliminated one by one and the aristrocacy would have taken hold of Russia again and plunged it back to feudalism. (Demigod Ron 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
 * DO you think that Bolsheviks were not oppressors? The Urisky was just another excuse. Lenins assassination attempt was also excuse, even historic and incorrect at that: The first attempt was later the bolsheviks had started red terror. The facts are:
 * 1) Lenin wanted power.
 * 2) Aristocrats were in the way.
 * 3) They were eliminated and replaced by bolsheviks.
 * 4) New oppressors took position, but everyone who said that instead saying "they are liberators" were killed. So new liberators of working class were born! Suva Чего? 06:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference between excuse and reason is completely subjective. Let us take the example of world war 1, the assassination of Ferdinand could be said to have been the reason that the war began, or an excuse for the capitalist powers to finally duke it out to divide the world amongst themselves. Naturally anyone saying that Ferdinand's death was a reason would bring up stirring images of patriotism. Now let us consider Urisky's death. You, who belives that the red terror had secret motives besides the stated purging of the previous ruling classes (an act that is almost mandated after any revolution be it aristrocratic, bourgeois or proletariat) would say that the death of Urisky was an excuse to quietly dispose of a handful of people. I on the other hand, would say that Urisky's death triggered the tensions between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy and the Bolsheviks (who with the help of the Russian people had already defeated these groups.) Furtheremore the red terror largely occured during the Russian civil war. And you cannot possibly have the same standards during peacetime as you have during a time when a nation is being besieged by groups that are supported by the most powerful nations in the world.
 * Your facts are something that Pipes (or any other man who is preaching against true greats like Lenin and Marx in order to not be lost to the pages of history) would dream up.
 * 1) Lenin had already been elected chairman, what more power could he possibly have beyond that?
 * 2) The aristrocrats were fighting the Red Army during this time. Most of the "victims" were most likely cassualties of war, or people that would overthrow the new state.
 * 3) It was not just the Bolsheviks that took part in this play, you forget that local soviets too rounded up aristrocrats and bourgeois. Thus the people of Russia are to blame for the red terror.
 * 4) While I as a Trotskyist agree that Stalin is the embodiment of evil. Russia was much better off while Lenin was in office. If the Bolsheviks of this period were the new oppressors, then they were doing a horrible job of oppressing by giving electricity to the entire nation, giving the farmers new equipment and granting women all the rights of men.
 * Since you cannot possibly argue against this dialetic truth, surely you will now quote your precious Black book of Communism. (Demigod Ron 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

Religion is fun thing. Be it Christian, Marxist or Satanist. I am neither of them, and I don't have holy book to cite (except K&R maybe). Suva Чего? 07:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you want to talk about mass murder, it begins and ends with religions! Be it Crusades or Jihads there have been plenty of people killed in the names of the imaginary friends of certain leaders. With the exeption of the buddhists of course, their hands are largely clean. Perhaps vegetarianism is the key to world peace? ....Oh and Marxism is not a religion, we don't bow to anyone or sacrifice virgins. And even if it did help the revolutionary, we wouldn't do it... (Demigod Ron 18:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Well, actually you did. Many russian people, surely including virgins. All for the cause of revolution. Suva Чего? 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you're just splitting hairs. The proper term would be: "counterrevolutionaries who were premenently prevented from corrupting the revolutionary effort." Not "mass murder" or "sacrificed in the name of the revolution." Another cannot sacrifise you in the name of the revolution, you must make that decision on your own and choose to die for the greater good of the proletariat rather than selfishly hold on to your life. (In reality all of us are but peices of humanity, parts of a greater whole. One life is irrelevant if it can help thousands.) Secondly the Russian virgins were not sacrificed, not were the Bolsheviks even targeting virgins. If an aristrocrat happened to be a virgin then she would be prevented from corrupting the revolution like any other aristrocrat, irrelevant of whether or not she is a virgin. The Bolsheviks did not walk down the street and knock on every door then asked if there were any virgins inside that they could throw into a volcano. I'm sure that everyone has noticed that this discussion has been so far removed from it's original focus that it's become pointless. (Demigod Ron 02:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
 * You may also notice the template in front of this conversation which has been there for quite some time. Don't waste your time on this thread unless you want to continue the pointless debate with me. Noone will gain anything from this. Suva Чего? 06:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Debate with you? So you're the vanguard of the bourgeois version of the truth for this specific event. Interesting, was an election held or did you just step in and take that assignment? (Demigod Ron 03:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I got this position by evilly oppressing the working class of wikipedia with my capitalism. Suva Чего? 07:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, then I am here to liberate them from your tyranny and build the dicatorship of the proletariat. You cannot have change without conflict, and you cannot have conflict without opposing forces. So I thank you Suva, the world needs people who are wrong so it can see the truth.(Demigod Ron 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

Nandigram
The mentions of Nandigram violence should be removed from the article. This is a spin-off produced by an edit-war at Communist Party of India (Marxist), and applying the term 'Red terror' to Nandigram is an obvious attempt to push pov. The Nandigram violence, be it a very tragic episode, is essentially an violent conflict between different political parties in a local setting of a multi-party system. There is a communist-led state government, but this is a state government that operates within a capitalist framework. The fact that the term 'Red terror' has been used in newsmedia does not per se warrant a comparison to the Soviet Great Purge of the 1930s. --Soman (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the nandigram violance article. Numerous media sources have used the term "Red Terror" to describe it. It's definitely a notable comparison.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. This article is on the historical phenomenon 'Red terror', not incidents labelled as 'Red terror'. --Soman (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are already mentions of red terror in China and other places. Clearly several Communist genocides, including the one in India, have been inspired by this one.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That comparison is completly unfounded. Do you seriously see a connection between the March 14 police killings in West Bengal and the Chinese Cultural Revolution? --Soman (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently most wikipedians do see the obvious fact that Communists borrow inspirations from their compatriots from all over the world, especially when it comes to rapine, murder and forced seizure of land. You are the one going against consensus here.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Try source that argument, good luck. The 'consensus' = yourself? --Soman (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Red Terror" is a rhetorical device used by a certain part of the opposition in West Bengal, although the numbers killed in Nandigram (no more than 14 in clashes between armed groups and the police) can hardly be called a pogrom, genocide or anything on the scale of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Nandigram is only notable for the fact that it was recent. It is not a systematic campaign of killing.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that is certainly what Communist revisionists say. That is not what non-Communist controlled media say.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling and engage in an adult discussion, just for once.--Conjoiner (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would call characterization of the Times of India and the BBC as "right wing" a fairly egregious case of Communist trolling.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Grow up.--Conjoiner (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ..and steal farmers' land and give them to my children and flunkies like the Communist Jyoti Basu did?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BBC clearly puts 'Red terror' in brackets. Also, 'Marxist revisionism' is a term used quite differently from historical revisionism. --Soman (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But they denote the term as a description, even if as an allegation. That is sufficient notability. All else is Communist wikilawyering.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they quote opposition politicians using the term. BBC has a very strict guideline of these issues. --Soman (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Times of India is a fairly respectable publication (India's oldest still extant newspaper) and liberally uses the term, and not as quotes. Also, the Indian Express The only media outlet that avoids the term is the Communist Controlled "Frontline", although even they will have to capitulate sometime or face much-deserved lynch mobs.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Incitement of violence, highly unsuitable. --Soman (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Who? Me? Hardly? Nandigram violence was the result of Communism.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When you say that Frontline deserves to be attacked by lynch mobs, you're clearly out of bounds from a decent discussion. --Soman (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well lynch mobs are quite common in India, so that is neither here nor there. Most "rule of law" in the country, especially in the Communist controlled "Red Corridor" (I should start an article on that) is the rule of the lynch mob. None of this is unusual or inflammatory in an Indian context, believe it or not.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * and when someone's comrade perorates that the Times of India is "right-wing", he has clearly out of bounds from reality.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a liar. I said the Times of India quoted right-wing opposition groups, not that the Times of India is right-wing. You deliberately and continually misrepresent others to bolster your argument, when it falls apart.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tsk!Tsk! Calling people "liars" is not a good sign. Communists should stick to calling their detractors Fascist pigs, Zionist Pigs, Idolaters, kaffirs or any of that stuff.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a liar. You have deliberately distorted what I said. And this is not the first time. But if you want to portray me as an anti-semite, on completely baseless grounds, then you're really upping the ante. Prove it.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never accused you personally of antisemitism, only linked to standard epithets used by Indian Communists (and other Communists, though Indian Communists are the most neurotic of the lot). Someone's feeling guilty it seems.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not guilty of anything. I am sick of your insinuations that I am anti-semite, when I have said nothing at all that could be construed as such. Not one word have I uttered that is remotely anti-Jewish. You should stop these insinuations.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? I never insinuated anything against you personally. I know nothing about you, except for my suspicions that you, like me, are an ethnic Bengali.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What has ethnicity got to do with anything? Why would you think I am Bengali? You of course have insinuated lots of things: Communist, Bengali supremacist, paid Communist propagandist and the rest of your lies. Let me tell you this, for the record. I am not Bengali, I am not Communist, I am not anti-Jewish, I am not paid by anyone. Get that into your head and go trouble someone else with your lunacy.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, excuse me? The lunacy is when Communists blank content from wikipedia articles that are clearly Notable, and have Reliable Sources cited to verify their content.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * None of which you have done, of course.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since a reliable source called this "Red Terror", Ghanadar galpa has a valid argument. I suggest to chill out and wait for opinion of other people who are not involved in this dispute.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He has no reliable source, he is misquoting. That is evident. The BBC quoted a right-wing opposition group as calling it "red terror", the BBC did not use this itself. It would not use such terms. He has no valid argument, he is a troll. He is best reverted and ignored. "Red terror" is most frequently used to describe Maoist insurgency, not police actions. But you can be free to ignore me and believe this troll's lies.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)
 * Er, excuse me? The lunacy is when Communists blank content from wikipedia articles that are clearly Notable, and have Reliable Sources cited to verify their content. I only suspected that you were a Bengali because you were using long-winded and obfuscatory arguments that are characteristic to that particular culture, as BEngalis such as Amartya Sen implicitly point out in their published works. If you are not, then fine. Ethnicity has no real bearing, but I often think of such things. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * None of which you have done, of course.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't start editing this article. It was User:otolemur crassicaudatus (no doubt, another "evil Zionist-Fascist-Idolater"). I merely chipped in when I saw the Communists vandalizing it and added some more content from the BBC, which is not a "zionist imperialist propaganda source" despite what the CPI(M) spews out of their television stations about the BBCs alleged baises.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lies, lies and more lies. When have I called anyone a Zionist or a fascist or an idolator? I have not vandalised anything. I am trying to deal with your disruptive and malign involvement.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I say that you personally did? Only you are making that conclusion. Again, classic signs of a defensive guilt-complex.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course that is your insinuation. Why even bring this nonsense into the debate? You have repeatedly referred to me as a paid Communist propagandist and vandal.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least have the decency to admit that BBC uses brackets aroun "red terror" and uses it as a quote from the opposition sources? --Soman (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How is punctuation relevant to the content, which merely states that the BBC has used the term. Why elaborate on puncutation. Is this wikipedia or "Punctuapedia"?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I asked a question, I guess i'll have to take this as a negative response. The relevance is that it was the opposition that used the term, BBC merely reproduced their argument. BBC has thus not supported the notion that Nandigram violence is red terror. --Soman (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC doesn't "support" anything. They are journalists. They merely report. The fact that they have reported this is notable enough. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please chill out and read Etiquette. Save your nerves, and return back in a day or two, or edit something else.Biophys (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't bother administrators when it was raised here . So why should "etiquette" apply here?--Conjoiner (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Etiquette and other WP rules are written by intelligent and experienced people. It really helps to follow these rules. Please read them and think. Sorry for intervening here. Biophys (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the term "red terror" in India
In India, the term "red terror" is most commonly applied to Maoist/Naxalite insurgency.        I don't think it is an allusion to Soviet and Chinese pogroms, but simply an easier way of saying "Communist terrorism". Some members of the opposition in West Bengal have chosen to apply the term to allegations that supporters of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (which is not an insurgent group, but the leading party in the state's ruling Left Front coalition) have been involved in armed clashes in Nandigram. It is a rhetorical device used to describe any political violence involving supporters of left-wing parties, not an event in Indian history. That is why the inclusion of Nandigram in this article does not make sense and should be removed.--Conjoiner (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert war / article protected
I suspect that you are unaware that numerous reverts of articles are forbidden in wikipedia and you may be blocked from editing. Instead of doing this, I've chosen to protect the article for 24 hours of "cool-down" period. However if you will not resort to civility I will start blocking people. `'Míkka>t 08:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the same is going on in "Nandigram violence," and I protected it for 24 h. as well. Please stop revert wars everywhere and follow the rules of wikipedia's dispute resolution. `'Míkka>t 08:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the dispute resolution process is simply not working. An RfC was set up that has achieved nothing and comments were put on the administrators' noticeboard a week ago that have not been responded to . I saw an interview with Jimmy Wales on television who said that Wikipedia was self-policing and that there were hundreds of administrators who were able to intervene to enforce Wikipedia rules. Either he is not telling the truth or the administrators are not doing their job. I think it is probably the latter, since administrators are active but are choosing to ignore this problem. As such, it is up to ordinary editors to do the best they can to counter Ghanadar galpa disruptive behaviour. If you don't like it, then I suggest you get involved in resolving editorial disputes rather than threatening blocks and protecting pages from editing.--Conjoiner (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re your "if you dont like it": First, I neither like it nor dont like it. The first step is to quench the revert war. It is not only between you two: it creates difficulty for other editors edit the article. The second step is to remind you both to stop calling each other names. Calling names does not help you to defeat the opponent, on the contrary it may make you blocked. You asked or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Advice advice] and you got it: please follow wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Please keep in mind that dispute resolution does not mean that and admin must jump headlong into your discussion. For example I have no idea what is happening in India and don't want to know; I have my own headaches. What I know is that this page is in disruption. The fact that wikipedia is self-policing does not mean that other editors are under some obligation to help you out. Let me remind you that admins are not paid.  `'Míkka>t 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't call anyone any names. I pointed out that Ghanadar galpa is lying. He has lied about what I have said. In contrast, Ghanadar galpa has repeatedly attacked me as a Communist Party member paid to attack Wikipedia, a Bengali supremacist (whatever that means), implied that I am an anti-semite and other such baseless nonsense. He also continues to revert and breach 3RR, despite the warning he and I both received (I have not edited the disputed articles since I was told to leave them alone for a while). I have plenty of grounds to request that he is blocked for repeated personal attacks, but I have not because eventually he will get blocked if he continues this. I just want moderation of discussion on the disputed editorial issues. Apart from a referral for comment (which has achieved nothing) and writing on the administrators' noticeboard (which has achieved nothing), I don't know what other processes are available in such a dispute. What I do know is that a revert war has attracted some kind of attention and perhaps this is the only way to flag up attention. Let's see what happens and if there is no wider community involvement, then I guess another revert war will attract more attention. It's a stupid way to go about things, but the only thing that has worked.--Conjoiner (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am writing this for the third time now: PLEASE stop panicking and follow the wikipedia's dispute resolution process.I have an impression you did not look into this page at all. I am not going to write a copy or summary of this page here. Please read it and explain me what is unclear there. `'Míkka>t 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Second, writing simply "He has lied" without proof or reference is an empty insult. Third, article talk pages are not the place do discuss who is lying and who is not. Article talk pages are for discussing article content. Fourth. My warning was directed to both of you. In addition,  Ghanadar galpa was warned in other places to stop personal accusations. So you all just stop it. Period. I am no longer commenting on this issue. This is not kindergarten. `'Míkka>t 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very open to energetic and disruptive POV-pushers. The only reasonable way to deal with them is patiently, while publicizing the problem as much as possible so external input arrives over time. Relata refero (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

India
I think it is important to have some sort of delimitation of this article. The concept of Red Terror cannot be reduced to be defined as 'incidents called Red Terror'. Red Terror was a political construct, developed in opposition to White Terror. This cannot simply be reduced to 'violence by communists', and much less 'violence conducted by a police force in a capitalist state, who are under the direction of a communist-dominated regional government'. The Nandigram violence cannot be analysed in terms of Red vs White, since the anti-CPI(M) movement notably includes both rightwing parties as well as hardcore Stalinists such as SUCI. Nandigram simply cannot be defined encyclopediatically as Red Terror, even though Indian journalists find that naming convenient. --Soman (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The current article does not say that Nandigram violence is Red Terror. The article says is is "called" Red Terror by some, and the latter is a verifiable fact. `'Míkka>t 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the intro to the listing clearly says 'Examples of these other "Red Terrors" include'. --Soman (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. `'Míkka>t 19:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Red terror in China goes to Mao Zedong article. There is no article titled "Red terror in China". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. `'Míkka>t 19:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly this is what I am saying. In the case of China, the relevance of the term of "Red terror" is that the qoute by Mao Zedong. Similarly, in case of India, the relevance of the term "Red Terror" is the quote by media. So red terror in India should be mentioned in the same line of China. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevance is the China quote is not that Mao said something, it was saying something and then putting it into practice. Do you not see any real difference between Nandigram and the Chinese Cultural Revolution? --Soman (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "it was saying something and then putting it into practice" - what is the definition of red terror? "putting in practice" - what? what putting in practice? The relevance is that Mao used the term "Red terror". Cultural Revolution is called Cultural Revolution, not red terror in China. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Some questions; --Soman (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where in is 'Red Terror' mentioned.
 * Where in is 'Red Terror' mentioned?
 * Where in is 'Red Terror' mentioned?


 * Removed the references which do not have the term "Red terror". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have said time and again, but have been ignored, "red terror" in India commonly refers to Naxalism, not the West Bengal government. Yet this article gives the impression that, because a couple of politicians chose to apply the term to the Nandigram incident, it is the only reference to "red terror" in India. Moreover, it is simply absurd to describe police action in Nandigram as one of "numerous Communist terror campaigns which followed in Russia and many other countres", as this article attempts to do.--Conjoiner (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of all, I would say that including Nandigram in the listing clearly trivalizes the concept of Red Terror. It might seem that including Nandigram in the listing would be an anticommunist standpoint, but in reality it works the other way. --Soman (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, we can not make any judgements what is a Red Terror and what is not per WP:NOR. If a reliable source claims something to be "Red Terror", it should be mentioned here or redirected/linked from here. This is very simple.Biophys (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, you probably wanted to say "if a reliable source calls something "Red Terror". Please keep in mind that reporters are not experts in history. Reporters may report a buzzword, but they cannot tell us the meaning of the word. Newspapers are source for news. Experts are sources for definitions. Please keep this distinction in mind: each source is a reliable source only within its domain of expertise (keeping in mind that a newspaper may quote an expert, but in this case the source is the expert, not the journalist). `'Míkka>t 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should not use news reports for a definition if there are better sources. But it is O'K to say that news reporters called certain type of violence or events "Red Terror" if they did it. I think that current version which briefly mentioned India is fine.Biophys (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ... but only if it describes Nandigram, not in the usual sense in which it is used to describe Naxalism. Look, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but the term "red terror" has a longer association with Naxalites. The decision to only reference the Nandigram incident is simply intended to target a particular political party, rather than give an encyclopaedic understanding. But, hey, common sense won't prevail here, will it?--Conjoiner (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So you may as well go ahead and add something about Naxalism to the end of this article, and preferably also add something about Red Terror to the Naxalite article, right? -Father Inire (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no, because unlike the Soviet and Ethiopian "Red Terrors", "red terror" in India is not an event or a policy but an emotive and colloquial term for Communist terrorism (namely, Naxalism), which became used to describe police action in Nandigram by some opposition figures. I just don't think it is relevant here.--Conjoiner (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. The article on Communist terrorism does mention the Naxalites, and might be a better place for this stuff than this article. -Father Inire (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is a better place, but just a mention is all that is needed (eg "often referred to as 'red terror' by the authorities").--Conjoiner (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bourgeois POV
Clearly this article sees the red terror from the eyes of the Russian bourgeoisie. It focuses solely on the suffering of a small group while completely ignoring the larger forces at play during the red terror. Namely the as the terror was happening, Russia was being besieged by a dozen different armies! Armies financed by the most powerful countries of the time. Furthermore, most of the people silenced by the red terror were actively supporting the foreign forces attacking Russia. Is that not called treason? And yet, certain users completely ignore this, instead focusing on yet another atrocity of "communism". In short, while many of you may think that my edits reflect a Leninist POV, it is far closer to the truth that what the article currently is, simply a string of quotes from largely irrelevant anti-communists. Lenin himself stated several times what the purpose of the red terror is and the motivations of the bolsheviks. I have of course tried to include his words in the article, but for some reason class warfare is not a form of violence that many of you approve of, perhaps imperialism is more of your taste eh?

I know that most of you will continue to revert my edits in order to further whatever agendas you may be trying to further. But tons of dirt has already been piled on Lenin's name and deeds by people like Pipes and Conquest. But no matter how hard you all may try to discredit and demonize him, the truth stands on its own. And there will always be people to defend the truth against bourgeois idealists. I'm sure you're all very nice people, but your willingness to warp history for your own ends speaks poorly of your characters.(Demigod Ron 03:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Hello, Demigod Ron. We are not doing any pro-Lenin or anti-Lenin propaganda here. That would be against WP rules. We are simply telling about Lenin's words and deeds, so a reader can decide for himself what was good and what was not. That is encyclopedic approach. This is your edit: . Here you deleted sourced views of Vladimir Lenin himself.

1. He defined this dictatorship as "power that is limited by nothing, by no laws, that is restrained by absolutely no rules, that rests directly on coercion"'' (reference). But you represented this as words of ...Conquest. No, that was said by Lenin - I can provide more sources with this citation of Lenin; these are his famous words.

2. You also deleted the following passage from Lenin. 'Comrades!... You must make example of these people. (1) Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers. (2) Publish their names. (3) Seize all their grain. (4) Single out the hostages per my instructions in yesterday's telegram.''

So, do not you see: you are trying to whitewash Lenin by deleting words of Lenin himself. That is contrary to official WP:NPOV policy - deletion of referenced views (in that case views of Lenin). Biophys 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's both POV and bourgeois to use the term "bourgeois" particularly in this venue. Shouldn't you be out in the street awakening the proletariat rather than sitting at your desk like the rest of the bourgeoisie?  In fact, owning a computer is pretty bourgeois - perhaps you should throw yours out. In terms of Wiki policy, edits such as this where you use VI Lenin's writings to extrapolate conclusions are a violation of WP:NOR.  Lenin's writings can be presented as historical artifact, but not interpreted in Wiki.  However, interpretations of Lenin's writings by notable scholars may be included. --Strothra 05:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above essay by Demigod Ron sounds like a textbook example of WP:TRUTH. And assertions such as "speaks poorly of your characters" when referring to fellow WP editors sound like clear-cut infringements of WP:NPA to this petty bourgeois.  Turgidson 13:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how it's bourgeois to use the term bourgeois. Furthermore, in what pamphlet did Lenin define the dictatorship of the proletariat as "power that is limited by nothing, by no laws, that is restrained by absolutely no rules, that rests directly on coercion"'? Every marxist has the same definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, just as every Christian has the same definition of Christ. I apologize for deleting Lenin's order to silence the kulaks, their deaths are something to be proud of not to hide. They were after all class enemies of the proletariat. It was an honest mistake on my part. Your argument that Lenin's writings do not belong on this article, but the writings of some two-bit historian do is completely illogical. If you want to know why something was done, do you ask the leader who initiated the campaign or do you ask someone several thousand miles away what he thinks of the leader? This is essentially what you are suggesting. Conquest was less than ten years old during the red terror and living in England, and yet his words are more valuable than Lenin's?


 * Now, back to me being "bourgeois". This is accusation is likely do to a misunderstanding of what is to be bourgeois. Being bourgeois means that you own the means of production, which I do not. If I did, I would probably be on your side of the battlefield ganging up on some marxist trying to make this article express a bourgeois POV. Owning a computer does not make you bourgeois, owning a factory does.


 * The suggestion that I go out on the street and enlighten the rest of the proletariat is a good idea, but tragically it's a fool's errand. In America there are 10 or so important socialist parties, a few are marxist and two or three are trotskyist. Despite their best efforts to open the eyes of the American proletariat have failed. Do you know why? America is built on an ideology that naturally lends itself to capitalism, Americans have always believed that unrestrained competition is the golden path and that wealth is a virtue. This is the only country that essentially worships billionaires is it not? Any student of dialectics can see that the forces at work in this country. The bourgeoisie, the international bourgeoisie knows that America is a bunker they can rely on but must protect. Whoever controls this bunker essentially controls the world, which is why the American media has produced so much garbage and why the American masses are encouraged to go on insane (and distracting) crusades fueled by different false consciousnesses (the contemporary one being gay liberation). Now that I've said this, you will all probably think "well Ron, why don't you just give up?" To which I say, did Lenin give up when he was exiled to Siberia? No... Did Trotsky give up when he was exiled from the nation he fought for, even though he had been handpicked to guide the Russian proletariat? No, he didn't... And while there are no more Lenins or Trotskys left, we must learn from their example and not surrender a single inch to our enemies unless we fight them tooth and nail for it.(Demigod Ron 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Oy, this is not a forum for your political rants. Discussion should be limited to article edits only in the context of Wiki policy. --Strothra 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm merely answering the questions addressed at me. But because the assault was so vicious that my defense just as thorough. (Demigod Ron 22:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Right, ok...Anyway, you still can't add your own assessments, interpretations, value judgments, etc. drawn from primary sources such as VI Lenin's works. You can, however, discuss the scholarly debate over those works per WP:NOR.  It just has to be balanced per WP:NPOV. --Strothra 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that Lenin's definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat is POV. But Conquest making up a definition and claiming that Lenin said that is not POV. (Demigod Ron 23:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
 * No, I never said that it was POV. What would be POV is for you to include quotations from VI Lenin and then to expand upon them without your expansions being cited by reliable sources. --Strothra 01:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you agree with me that we should use the Marxist definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat rather than Conquest's obcervations and what he thinks it is. (Demigod Ron 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
 * No. We are not going to decide whose definition was right. That would be OR. According to WP guidelines, we are going to describe what reliable secondary  sources are telling about Red Terror. Such sources are books by Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes and others.Biophys 18:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Biophys. Also, however, the Marxist definitions of dictatorship can be included as contrast to scholarly works. --Strothra 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, but are you sure that dictatorship of proletariat belongs to this article? According to Marxist "theory", dictatorship of proletariat is "a temporary state between the capitalist society and the classless and stateless communist society". So, Red Terror was the "dictatorship of proletariat" after all? Sounds strange to me, since many thousands of Russian workers were executed as a result of their own dictatorship... Biophys 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right on that point, yes. --Strothra (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and All That Jazz. As Niccolò Machiavelli once said, "The end justifies the means". Or, as Demigod Ron said above, "I apologize for deleting Lenin's order to silence the kulaks, their deaths are something to be proud of not to hide."  This reminds me of that old French saying, à chacun son goût.  Turgidson 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The dictatorship of the proletariat is the stage between capitalism and communism. Thus the dicatorship is socialism, that is a society that is controlled by the workers. Which means that including Conquest's definition of the dictatorship is largely irrelevant, since every Marxist knows that the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism just as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is capitalism. But I understand that this article has been carefuly worded to incite anti-Marxist sentiment in the general uninformed and unenlightened public. You all seem to forget that the Red Scare is over. (Demigod Ron (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC))
 * There are two possibilities. Either you want to make a point that Red Terror was dictatorship of proletariat, or dictatorship of proletariat does not belong to this article.Biophys (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The red terror was nothing more than the post-revolutionary defence set up against the reactionary classes by the proletariat to prevent a counter-revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat would come dirrectly after the terror, when the proletariat has access to all the state machinery and can govern without worry of a counter-revolution. Obviously, the terror came a bit late in Russia since as the former ruling classes were being removed, a counter-revolution was already happening. Of course this means that the dicatorship of the proletariat has no place in an article about the Red Terror, just like Russian feudalism has no place. The dictatorship of the proletariat was the bright future that Russia never reached, while feudalism is it's past. (Demigod Ron (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

I've decided to make some changes to the article to bring it to a more neutral point of view (if an NPOV is at all possible). Though I sympathise greatly with Demigod Ron's argument, we must try and avoid these "bourgeois" accusations. It is also vital to give true historical fact rather than descending into a debate on ethics and morality, whether we think that it was right or wrong to kill tens of thousands for a greater good is irrelevant. Clearly Demigod Ron is right to criticize an article which has as its primary sources Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes and the Black Book of Communism (Ron, keep in mind that Mussolini was once a source in the Spanish red terror article, its not that bad.). To me those historian's works are laughable, simply continuing the Right-Left conflict rather than observing it, however they are sources nonetheless and we must permit their views.

For those who have read Deutscher's trilogy on Trotsky and indeed the bulk of his analysis on the Russian revolution, I think you would agree that his approach is probably best. The Bolsheviks dispersed the constitutional assembly, killed a number of dissenters, authorized the murder of the Tsar and many clergy men, attempted "militarization of labour" and so on, but context must be given. We would not approach the bombings of Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima as simple war crimes, civilian death statistics, instead we would mention the desperation of Allied commanders and the general brutality of the war. On a smaller scale it is equally stupid to simply state that the 1200 priests and 20 bishops were murdered. It would give the false impression that they were just minding their own business when the Bolsheviks came along and killed them because the Bolsheviks are evil. How many of these priests were collaborating with the enemy? How many supported the Black Hundreds? How many were participants in the exploitation by the church of the people prior to the revolution (a well documented exploitation stretching back hundreds of years in every European country)? Or more simply, how many were punished because they were guilty? And of course, how many were actually killed on the orders of the Bolsheviks? We will probably never be able to answer those questions, but we should state the possibility of those things.

Demigod Ron is also right to question the wording of the article. The worst that springs to mind is "Most historians agree that Bolsheviks simply had no other means except mass terror to stay in power, because they had no popular support.". This can have disastrous and untrue implications. Most historians do agree that the Bolsheviks needed the red terror to stay in power, had they let the people trying to overthrow them just walk around in the streets of St Petersburg then the chances are they would swiftly be removed from power. But it is certainly not the case that the reason given is "because they had no popular support". Historians who are not right wing ideologues like to remind us that the Bolsheviks won a sizable majority in the Soviets just prior to the revolution. Trotsky and other speakers regularly spoke to crowds of tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of persons (an argument could be made here that this is left wing propaganda from the Soviet Union, which would be nonsensical considering Stalins repression of any evidence that suggested Trotsky was popular). Anger against the Mensheviks and the Kadets was so strong that Trotsky had to personally intervene and risk his life to save a Menshevik cabinet member who was about to by lynched by a mob during the July days, and of course the July days were a product of that anger (the argument that it was an attempted coup is nigh on fraud). The bolsheviks -did- have the majority of working class support, and the majority of the peasantry supported their aims (however they, isolated from the cities had not found out that the Bolsheviks represented those aims, not the SRs who had virtually abandoned the cause). I could go on and on, but put simply the claim that the Bolsheviks had no popular support even by mid 1918 is absolute rubbish, and it is also rubbish that most historians believe they had no popular support. Pipes and the writers of the Black Book are in no way representative of most historians. Unless a poll or something can be provided proving me wrong, then the claim must be removed.

I've noticed now that I've gone on for a bit, and though I could continue making my argument I think I'll knock it on the head for a bit. I will not make the changes immediately, to allow for some discussion here first. JohnyGoodman (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, one can replace "most historians" by words "according to such and such historians" to provide better attribution. However, sourced views of notable histirians, such as Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest, can not be removed from the articel per WP:NPOV. The statement that Bolsheviks used terror because they had no popular support came from one of such sources and supported by numerous data. Do you want direct citation or the page? You said: "To me those historian's works are laughable". Who are you to decide this? Did you publish any books on this  subjects like Pipes and Conquest?  If you want to disccuss something, please make more specific suggestions.Biophys (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I think I can form my own opinion on a historian's work without being a published historian myself. I made it quite clear that I had no intention of cutting out all of the work by those historians, and in fact expressed no intention of cutting out any of any of their work. I simply stated that it could not be a good thing if those historians were the ONLY ones used, which they essentially are. They are considered by centrist and left-wing historians as right-wing, and right-wing historians cannot be allowed to dominate such a politically sensitive article. This is simply enough a right wing point of view on the Terror. It would be a good thing to first of all bring in accounts by other historians such as Deutscher or Hobsbawm (the argument that they were Marxists at various points in their lives and so unreliable would lead to Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest's careers as advisers to Reagan and Thatcher in the 80's being brought to light), and to correct a great deal of the language used, which gives a false impression of events that is often used for political purposes. Pipes' and Conquests' interpretations can remain, but as it stands they are presented as the only interpretations, which may convince people that those interpretations are the truth (there is a strong element of doubt). I think it is also important to provide some kind of context. The "purpose of the red terror" section in particular needs patching up, currently it is made out that the Bolsheviks came into power intending to kill as many people as they could. Some select sources might give that impression, but a thorough reading of Marxist literature prior to the revolution refutes it entirely. I am not trying to have a particular discussion here, it is just that in other political/historical/philosophical articles that are politically sensitive a user or two often appoint themselves as "guardians", using various tactics to prevent a proper, comprehensive article being written because it contradicts some important views of their chosen ideology. For example removing other points of view for the flimsiest of reasons, adding a controversial (and often refuted) argument and then removing the counter-argument because they deem it "unimportant", asking for a source on virtually every word written except those that form their arguments, and so on. Upon reading this article I had a great deal of suspicion that it was the case here. It is a source of much frustration when contributions are removed for the aforementioned reasons, and any attempt to enforce changes leads to an edit war (which I don't have the patience to partake in). So I reasoned that if I laid down my arguments here and now before I made any changes, then the edit war could be kept to the discussion board. JohnyGoodman (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Frustration, deletion of perfectly sourced texts, insertion of irrelevant materials, and edit war. It is exactly what happens with almost any WP article on controversial subjects. One needs a lot of patience.Biophys (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, your text about winning majority in Petrograd Soviet is WP:OR. Winning majority in a self-proclaimed organization (the "Soviet") in a single city does not mean popular support. These are not results of democratic elections or sociological/statistical studies.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did I claim that they had popular support? I only claimed that they had popular support within the working class, and that's why I left in "however the working class only represented 5% of the Russian population". The Soviets were democratically controlled, not Bolshevik puppets - they were created by the Mensheviks! Martov and Axelrod by the way were not Bolsheviks, they were Mensheviks - fierce critics of Lenin and Trotsky. The fact that they admitted that the Bolsheviks had working class support, and the fact that the Bolsheviks gained a majority in the Soviets (democratically elected and the true holders of powers in the city) is indicative of popular support by the working class. I claimed nothing more. On looking at the OR section, perhaps it is necessary that I provide a source for the connection between winning a democratic election and being democratically supported? I merely thought it self-evident. JohnyGoodman (talk)

Fasle statement, removed
The following piece removed:
 * Bolsheviks saw the bourgeoisie, landowners, peasantry, and intelligentsia in Russia as class enemies of the industrial workers, whom they claimed to represent. Industrial workers comprised only 1 to 2% of Russia's population, and only 5.3% of them were members of Bolshevik party.

The first sentence is false: Bolsheviks claimed that they represent workers and poor peasantry. Therefore the second sentence is meaningless in this context. also their view on intelligentsia was not as simplistic, but this page is not the pace to dwell upon intelli.`'Míkka>t 04:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This should be explained better. So, why did they resort to the Red Terror? There are many different explanations here that could be sourced including the following: (1) Bolsheviks had no popular support (cited here); (2) they had to kill all enemies to "defend the Revolution" (official Soviet version); (3) the terror was an ideological madness - they had to kill people according to Marxist theory; (4) Bolshevik party was a criminal organization that has been involved in robbery and murders for money even before the Revolution; (5) Lenin and his comrades were sadists. Please tell if I forget something. This reminds me a song by Vladimir Vysotsky - "Why did the aborigens eat the Captain Cook?"Biophys (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

unsuitable style
It sure sound horrifying what you write. But a good historical article should be written differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.171.245.48 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jörg Baberowski
Jörg Baberowski has written several texts about Soviet terror.Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)