Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:

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


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


Contents

Rosa Kaganovich

Rosa Kaganovich: did she even exist? According to Robert Conquest, Stalin "associated" with her after Nadezhda's death (Great Terror, p. 68), but according to the Kaganovich family, she is a figment of the imagination. The main references I've seen to her are on anti-semitic websites; but according to nndb, she was Stalin's third wife. D SCH 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, according Macauley's "Stalin and Stalinism," he never remarried after Nadezhda's death. D SCH 14:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In Edvard Radzinsky's excellent and exhaustive 1996 biography of Stalin, there is no mention anywhere of a Rosa Kaganovich, only of Lazar Kaganovich. Hence, we must assume, that Stalin did not "associate" with Rosa Kaganovich and that he was never remarried after Nadezhda Sergeevna Allilujeva's death. (unsigned)

In Montefiore's "Stalin" (2003) he says (p.273) that Lazar had both a sister and a niece named Rosa, but that the marriage is a myth. Jobh 10:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how can a woman in Russia could have as surname "Kaganovich" since usually these surnames or "patronimics" have termination "vich" for males and "ova" for females which means that Rosa's name would at best be "Rosa Kaganova". 201.129.240.39 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Zealot Kmmunizma

Picture mix-up

I'm sorry about this; in an attempt to restore this article to a credible state after the actions of a vandal, I attempted to exchange the manipulated image in the sidebar[1] with Stalin.jpg, as opposed to Stalin1.jpg. It had become my belief after obeserving the image upload history that this was the correct image. However, this exchanged the picture with the one which is currently seen there, and thus said picture appeared twice throughout the article. I tried changing the code back to Stalin.jpg, hoping to restore the article to its previous state for somebody more experienced in wikiing to do what I had failed to do, but that resulted in there being no picture at all, so I changed it back to Stalin.jpg. The image that should, to my knowledge, be in the sidebar is this one[2]. I leave it to those more in the know to repair the article. Another user had uploaded the rather unflattering image of Mr. Stalin in which he fashions pink hair and a rather fancy suit, but he claims on a talk page (which I can no longer find, sadly) that this was accident. Yet another user attempted to revert to the orginal image, but it would seem that this fixed only the archived picture and not the article in which it is featured.

Thank you in advance to whomever who fixes this! --TheFinalFraek 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • No prob. You were led down the primrose path of confusion because of caching. You correctly reverted the vandalism to the image, but the Stalin page was cached with the vandalized image. There are a few ways to fix that; the quick way is to append ?action=purge to the URL. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks mate! --TheFinalFraek 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalin as Mass Murderer

Surely Stalin shouldn't be refered to as one of the greatest mass murderers. Biggest or largest would be more appropriate.


It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if war, famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and state terrorism (deportations and political purges) are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred under Stalin is in the millions. - From the article.

So lets get this straight....Stalin murdered millions, but that fact is not clearly stated in the introduction. I guarantee that if U.S. President Bush had murdered millions of his own citizens, it is the FIRST thing that would be stated in his Wikipedia article, not buried somewhere in the middle, and rightly so. Well, the same goes for an article about the leader of the former Soviet Union...unless editors are trying to convey the impression that murdering millions was so common among leaders of that nation, that it doesn't deserve calling attention to it. This article should begin with a statement that Stalin murdered millions. Drogo Underburrow 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Actually if Bush killed any amount it probably would be left unmentioned. Clinton - maybe Bush the Elder too - embargoed Iraq and ended up killing 500,00 +- kids from forced drinking of foul water. Is that mentioned under Clinton's little blurb? Source - quote from M. Albright "we think it was worth it.."





Of course it is inevitable that Bush, and any prominent U.S. politician currently in office for that matter, is likely to get somewhat unfair coverage on Wikipeida. Now that Bush is down in the polls, though not at levels historically surprising for a second term president, I notice the bias creeping in his Wikipedia article. Parts of the article are becoming screeds for some of the most extreme and partisan elements of the Democratic Party; yesterday, for example, I removed a photo calling for the president's impeachment. [3] A couple of weeks ago, I also had to clean up the article on Conrad Burns, a Montana politician who is also under attack of partisan national Democratic activists. Electoral politics are clearly working their way into Wikipedia.
Fortunately, Wikipedia seems to have a capacity to avoid a shrill and polemical tone in articles on historical figures who are long dead. It may be inconsistent with the tone of articles on living politicans, but Wikipedia is more encyclopedic when it can avoid emotional overtones in the history articles at least, including the articles on figures like Stalin and Hitler.
As a case-in-point, the Adolf Hitler intro is well-written because it mentions 'deaths of 11 million people' toward the bottom, in the third to the last sentence. The reference to the 11 million deaths belongs toward the end for two reasons. First, an encyclopedia article has to identify the basic stuff like 'who, what, when, and where' first, including name, birth date, birthplace, formal leadership titles, and period of rule. Second, the reference to 11 million deaths belongs toward the end because those deaths occurred toward the end of Hitler's rule. As an intro gives a summary of his rule, it should be moving along somewhat chronologically. The same goes for the Stalin article, where information should also be detailed in an encyclopedic tone. 172 | Talk 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
In one way, being responsible for millions of deaths is so much more notable than anything else that I can understand that you feel it should come very first in the article. But it's not how we write articles on state leaders, be it Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong or Stalin, to mention a few. We begin the article with the name, when they lived and the highest position they held and when they held it. I don't think we should make exeptions to that based on death tolls. Do you know of any other encyclopedia articles on Stalin (or anyone else) that begin as you would like it? Shanes 04:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying a brief statement about it should be the first issue that the introduction deals with about him, after the stuff about date of birth, etc. Since I doubt if editors will agree to that, at the very least it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. If it is insisted that the first paragraph be limited to giving formal information about him, then the second paragraph should deal with the issue. Drogo Underburrow 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a sample of what I mean:

"Joseph Stalin (help·info) (Russian, in full: Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин (Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin), né: Иосиф Виссарионович Джугашвили (Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili), Georgian: იოსებ ჯუღაშვილი (Ioseb Jughashvili); (December 18 [O.S. December 6 (although the date on his death certificate is December 21, 1879)] 1878[1]) – March 5, 1953) was the despotic ruler of the Soviet Union who built a bureaucratic and arbitrary network of terror unprecedented in history. He was responsible for the murder of tens of millions of people, ordering more people to their deaths than anyone else in history.
Stalin became general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party in 1922 and following the death of Vladimir Lenin, he prevailed over Leon Trotsky in a power struggle during the 1920s. In the 1930s Stalin initiated the Great Purge, a period of severe repression that reached its peak in 1937...."

This is not necessarily the best version, but just a ball-park example of the type of intro I think should be in the article. Drogo Underburrow 05:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The last thing we want to do is insert contested claims in the intro, or anywhere in the article without attribution for that matter. Not everyone agrees that Stalin was responsible for "ordering more people to their deaths than anyone else in history" because it is impossible to know for sure exactly how many deaths he 'ordered' or what constitutes the 'ordering.' Some come up with estimates, but they vary considerably. Distinguishing intent and effect is a major difficulty for a political historian... Regarding some of your other proposals, terms like "despotic" are also avoided on Wikipedia. I see no reason this intro cannot follow the rubric of the Adolf Hitler article, which is concise and readable. Mentioning millions of deaths says it all without loading up the text with a bunch of bad-sounding pejorative words. 172 | Talk 07:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it the consensus of historians that Stalin was a despotic ruler? If so, then why not say so? Not saying so is just as misleading as falsely saying so. Drogo Underburrow 07:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, words like "despotic ruler", "tyranny", "beaurocracy", etc is what academics call "loaded terminology", i.e. emotionally biased language showing that the author has an ax to grind or a cause to promote. You can apply these terms to many rulers and governments, all you need is several well-chosen examples. If you want an objective discussion of Stalin's deeds you should avoid loaded terminology and convey your point by giving facts such as executions of millions of people. Bublick439 07:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Although I disagree with the concrete proposals of both Drogo and Bublick439, I agree with Bublick439's reply to Drogo above. I only have a minor unrelated gripe; I don't understand how "bureaucracy" is a loaded term. At any rate, again, that's totally unrelated to the point. 172 | Talk 07:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The Encyclopædia Britannica calls Stalin a "totalitarian dictator" and a "tyrant". I guess you are accusing the EB of being unobjective and having an axe to grind. It appears you simply want the Wikipedia article to avoid any terms that make Stalin sound bad, even when those terms accurately describe what Stalin was. Stalin was a despot, and calling him one is entirely appropriate. Not calling him one could be a way of falsely putting a favorable spin on him. Drogo Underburrow 08:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
At the same time the Britannica intro does not mention the "tens of millions of deaths." Nor does it mention the famine. In that sense, I think we're doing a better job of conveying Stalin's criminality. By pointing to the concrete human toll better informs the reader than using the word "despot." 172 | Talk 08:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
to Talk: "bureaucracy" is a loaded term for "goverenment employees"
It isn't. The term has sometimes taken on a pejorative association in popular usage, especially since the attacks on government during the Reagan and Thatcher years. But that's an incorrect usage. The term has a specific meaning defined by experts in organization and other social scientists. A bureaucracy is any private or public entity organized impersonally in a hierarchy of specialization and functioning under rational and legal rules and procedures. So the term describes any corporation, school, hospital, political party, military, or government agency. In other words, bureaucracy is the primary mode of human organization of the modern world. 172 | Talk 08:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
to Drogo: mine was merely a suggestion, not an imperative. I am pasting the intro from Britannica. It doesn't sound too emotional or loaded to me, at any rate it doesn't say "killed millions of people" in the first sentence.

Russian in full Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin , original name (Georgian) Ioseb Dzhugashvili secretary-general of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–53) and premier of the Soviet state (1941–53), who for a quarter of a century dictatorially ruled the Soviet Union and transformed it into a major world power. During the quarter of a century preceding his death, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin probably exercised greater political power than any other figure in history. Stalin industrialized the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, forcibly collectivized its agriculture, consolidated his position by intensive police terror, helped to defeat Germany in 1941–45, and extended Soviet controls to include a belt of eastern European states. Chief architect of Soviet totalitarianism and a skilled but phenomenally ruthless organizer, he destroyed the remnants of individual freedom and failed to promote individual prosperity, yet he created a mighty military–industrial complex and led the Soviet Union into the nuclear age. Bublick439 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Ok, then lets continue to quote the EB....I but a couple of words in bold so you won't miss them:
That Stalin's system persisted as long as it did, in all its major essentials, after the death of its creator is partly due to the very excess of severity practiced by the great tyrant. Not only did his methods crush initiative among Soviet administrators, physically destroying many, but they also left a legacy of remembered fear so extreme as to render continuing post-Stalin restrictions tolerable to the population; the people would have more bitterly resented—might even, perhaps, have rejected—such rigours, had it not been for their vivid recollection of repressions immeasurably harsher. Just as Hitler's wartime cruelty toward the Soviet population turned Stalin into a genuine national hero—making him the Soviet Union's champion against an alien terror even worse than his own—so too Stalin's successors owed the stability of their system in part to the comparison, still fresh in many minds, with the far worse conditions that obtained during the despot's sway.
"Stalin, Joseph." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-13394> [Accessed April 7, 2006]
Aww..guess what...EB calls Stalin a despot, too. Now, all I propose is we say this in a nutshell, in the intro, like the example I gave. Drogo Underburrow 08:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, at the same time the Britannica intro does not mention the "tens of millions of deaths." We're already doing a better job of conveying Stalin's criminality. Mentioning the concrete human toll says a lot more than any one adjective. 172 | Talk 08:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we do both? Call him a tyrant, despot and all-around not nice guy, and still say he killed millions? And why can't we say this in the introduction, right after the required foreign language nonsense that editors love and ordinary readers hate? Furthermore, EB DOES say that Stalin murdered tens of millions. Drogo Underburrow 08:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Stalin's political victims were numbered in tens of millions. His main motive was, presumably, to maximize his personal power.
"Stalin, Joseph." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-13391> [Accessed April 7, 2006]. Drogo Underburrow 08:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The rules of Wikipedia state very clearly that all articles should be neutral. The intro is negative enough already. IMO, there is no need to make it extremely negative. Drogo, if you want to criticize mass murderers (a friendly suggestion) you can vent some of your energy on capitalist governments, who collectively exterminated well over 100 million people in various wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. If you feel that tyrany is wrong, do a little research on incarceration rate in the United States: it is the highest in the world.

On another note "Victims" and "deaths" are not synonyms. Stalin imprisoned a lot more people than he killed. Bublick439 08:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Imprisoning people in a Siberian gulag is a way of torturing someone to death. Drogo Underburrow 01:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is laughable, neither living in Siberia, nor being in prison in Siberia has been shown to cause 100% or even several % fatality rate, unless you have a reference from a peer-reviewed academic journal that shows otherwise. Bublick439 11:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The insane demonization that Stalin has been subjected too is directlly proportional to the "white washing" of Fascist Crimes that has been occurring since the beggining of the 90's. Every one of the "democratic posing" Nazi-Fascists on this planet is doing his or her best to contribute to that demonization process. The Holodomor is an anti-communist lie, made up by Nazi Germany's propaganda machine (as many other anti-communist lies that are still circullating today thanks mostlly to the american neo-Fascist righ wing) to mobilize the german people in to the comming war, and to preemptively justify the atrocities that the german soldires were going to "have to commit". The famine did occur, but it was neither engineered nor the result of any brutal grain confiscation policy. No "non-nazi" evidence supports that. It was the result of the recurrent droughts that occurred in that part of the Soviet Union, combined with some inexperience from the Soviet authorities. What hard evidences demonstrate is that the famine was widespread, it was not conscribed to Ukraine. It coincided with a drough period as all the famines in that region did. It was relativelly less devastating than the 1921 famine preciselly because the soviet authorities were more prepared. Hard evidences also demonstrate that sabotage, both internaly originated and externally promoted (by western nations) also had a very important role in the famine. A known fact is also that the birth rate in all the Soviet Union decreased very rapidly, and it was not because Stallin was eating babies, but because the rapidlly increasing access to education, health care and a more hurban life style allowed the soviet women a greater controll over their bodies and reproductive cicles. This decreasing birth rate accounts for many of those "millions" of victims that the neo-fascists of today are crying about. After the fall of the Soviet Union "all the old demons have run free". Lies like the "Ukranian engineered famine" have become mainstream "truths", after being revided by the Ukranian Fascists that fled to the US after the defeat of Nazi-Fascist Germany, at whose side they fought and in whose atrocities (against the Ukranian and Russian people) they actively participated. Nowadays it is tabu to expose such lies and at the same time Holocaust Negationism and the deculpabilization of Fascist atrocities are more and more acceptable. This article, which is clearlly anti-communist biased, is yet another step in the wrong direction. User:HelderM 17:20, 12 April 2006


Drogo is basically right here. Neutrality is a fine thing, provided it does not obscure the truth. One must not be so open-minded that your brains fall out. Specifically, Bublick--what are you talking about in demanding a 100% mortality rate before accepting that gulags could be death camps? Being shot in the head is not 100% fatal, but it is certainly deadly, just like GULAG Reimelt 01:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to understand this discussion and what the user Drogo really want. The introduction clearly lists a number of extremely damaging facts about Stalin:
  • "Stalin initiated the Great Purge, a period of police terror that reached its peak in 1937."
  • "Confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities under his orders led to a famine between 1932 and 1934, especially in Ukraine (see Holodomor), Kazakhstan and North Caucasus resulting in up to ten million deaths."
  • "Stalin's rule was characterized by a strong cult of personality, an extreme concentration of power, and little concern for the lives of people. Stalin tried to crush all opposition by establishing a ruthless security apparatus that resulted in the murder of millions of Soviet citizens. In addition to the purges and the famine, many were killed in the Gulags and in deportations."
If that is not telling the harsh truth about Stalin, I dont know what is. I am currently reading the book "Stalin, The Court of the Red Tsar", by Simon Sebag Montefiore, and it gives an interesting view of Stalins clever maneuvers. If anything, the article should focus more on how a murderer could reach to the top of one of the largest and most developed states at the time - and stay there for so long. Its a parallell to Hitler, by demonizing him one miss the obvious charm that made people follow him. Stalin - according to Sebag Monteriore, also had charm - and that killers charm it part of the truth that needs to be understood to learn anything from this hellish time of history. Ulflarsen 08:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should not be focused on that. I think it should be neutral.--Nixer 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Not that I'm going to start a hot debate on that but I want to point out that "extremely damaging facts about Stalin" are actually not facts. They are disputable points.--Nekto 16:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Stalin initiated the Great Purge, a period of police terror that reached its peak in 1937."
Russian speakers may read academician book Inoy Stalin by an historian, professor Yury Zhukov. < Don't pay attention that the book is located on the site with such a name, please :)>. From this book based on newly opened archives one can learn that Stalin was not initiator of the Purge - on the contrary he and so-called Stalin's groupe in the Politbuero were the ones who stoped it. --Nekto 16:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities under his orders led to a famine between 1932 and 1934, especially in Ukraine (see Holodomor), Kazakhstan and North Caucasus resulting in up to ten million deaths."
That statement (that it was due to confiscations) is also disputable. Read Davies, Wheatcroft, Tauger, and grandiose 5 volume set of archive materials and documents [4] --Nekto 16:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He had a great charm, indeed. People couldn't stop crying when he died. It's just because he's a symbol, a star, a guiding light... There was atheism in USSR; however, Stalin was the God. Lenin, Marx and Engels were the Dogmas and communism was an absolute, undoubtful truth. I remember an event... When one man unsuccessfully tried to kill Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev because he broke Stalin's cult. This murderer was imprisoned twice during Stalin's reign and his parents fell during repression. People loved Stalin as Christians love Jesus. And, you see, Stalin was a great progressor of that time. He took the country with a plow and left it with nuclear bomb. He was a mass-murderer and a tyrant, but he was a brilliant ruler. Every medal has two sides. --Wildead 07:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the desire to soft-peddle the mass murders of good old Uncle Joe. The article has all this "maybe this, mayvbe that, we really don't know ... oh let's forget it." What's the hidden agenda here? Whose vested interest is being protected? Are we still suffering from the lingering effects of Soviet propaganda? Just come on out and say he murdered millions of his countrymen. 69.109.169.63 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is we can't be sure it was on his orders. For example if ten people die in Britain, that doesnt mean that it is Tony Blair's fault neccessarily. In the same manner, albeit on a larger scale, it doesn't mean it was Stalins fault.

The second section is that we don't know how many died. It is very difficult to go to where they died for example - Northern Siberia isn't the most hospitable place for research. Nor were records kept that are of any reliability - states tend to destory this sort of obvious section.

So is it 4 or 20 million. Who knows? And the blunt situation is. Who cares. This may sound harsh, but once Stalin has been proven for 4 million what's the point. We can't identify the corpses anyway. It's the same with the Harold Shipman case. They got to so many life sentences for murder (20+ I think), but stopped, because he can only ever go to prison once.

I hope this helps. It's not about soft-peddling, it's about the reliability of Wikipedia and the evidence at hand.

Thanks, Philipwhiuk 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeat: Peer-reviewed articles vs. Books and Websites

I put up the POV label today

because the claims of tens of millions of deaths are unsupported by hard data. If the claimant can cite a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, then please give your source and your claims will be accepted as valid. Books and websites are not reliable sources of information, EVEN when an author claims to be a historian or is really a historian. You can publish any kind of nonsense in a book or on a website very easily and as someone who works in academia I can tell you that people with valid academic credentials, such as full professors, make questionable claims all the time, the problem is those questionable views most of the time cannot be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and until those claims survive the peer review process they should be ignored.

For those who are not familiar with how peer review works: when someone wants to publish a study in an accredited journal, they submit their manuscript to the editorial board and the editorial board sends the manuscript for review to at least three other unrelated researchers in the field and all three reviewers have to agree with the methods and conclusions in the study. The reviewers usually request the authors to redo some studies or use a different method or modify conclusions and when all reviewers approve the text of the manuscript, then and only then it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

On a different note, the other two encyclopedias, Britannica and Encarta, are more careful about the death toll from Stalin's rule. Encarta lists millions from famine and executions, Britannica lists millions from famine, millions from executions and "tens of millions of victims" which appears to be an allusion to those imprisoned by Stalin.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Stalin was a bad guy, yet exaggerations and fiction are unacceptable. How would you like it if somebody started claiming that Osama bin Laden killed 3 million Americans?

In the introduction I changed "tens of millions of deaths" to "millions of deaths". The sentence in the last paragraph now reads: "Stalin tried to crush all opposition by commencing a bureaucratic and usually arbitrary network of terror that resulted in millions of deaths."

If whoever wrote this has a reliable source about "tens of millions" (see above about which sources are reliable) feel free to give a reference and to change the sentence back Bublick439 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

The following is the sentence that you are calling into question: Stalin tried to crush all opposition by commencing a bureaucratic and usually arbitrary network of terror that resulted in tens of millions of deaths. You would be correct in pointing out that the claim that the Great Purge and the Gulag system resulted in tens of millions of deaths is contested. The 'numbers' on the Great Purge vary greatly from estimates by Getty at the low end to estimates by Conquest around the high end. However, I think you are misreading the sentence. The sentence is broad enough to cover all periods and facets of Stalin's rule. Thus, I read the sentence to include the 1932-34 famine as well as the Great Purge and the Gulag. Including the famine easily puts us past the 10 million threshold. Hardly anyone disputes that the Soviet famine deaths in 1933 alone, for example, were not at least at three to four million. On a perhaps more compelling level, mentioning tens of millions of deaths is necessary if you consider Drogo Underburrow as a common example of the extreme emotional reaction triggered in many readers by the article. Without disregarding the objective standards that you are bringing up, we must establish in a very poignant way the scale of Stalin's criminality; the best way of establising this point is saying outright that the was responsible directly or indirectly for tens of millions of deaths. 172 | Talk 07:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you add up 3 to 4 million dead from famine and and estimate of 1.5 to 7 million of executions you may arive at a figure exceeding 10 million, which is still not "tens of millions". Again, I have no objections to mentioning "tens of millions" IF you have a reference to a peer-reviewed study on the subject. If you only have books and websites this doesn't amount to a reliable source unfortunately. As I said before, the other two Encyclopedia's say "millions of deaths", and if you want to go farther than that you should provide a reference to a peer-reviewed study. Bublick439 08:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

I think we're on the same page when it comes to the estimates, such as the leading studies by Tsaplin, Getty, Conquest, Medvedev, and a handful of others. I think the dispute is our read of "tens of millions." I take that to mean at least 10 million. One can speak of "tens of" a unit X when X can be divided by ten and equal an amount greater than one. There is no disputing that we're easily above the 10 million mark when including the Gulag, famine, Great Purge, etc., even when picking out the low-end estimates for each category. So we can say "tens of millions" without disregarding the work of serious researchers whose numbers for the purges and the labor camps come up at the low end, such as Getty. At any rate, just about the famous 'combined' figures are much higher. Hence, Britiannica cites Medvedev's famous 20 million figure in their Stalinism article: In 1989 the Soviet historian Roy Medvedev estimated that about 20 million died as a result of the labour camps, forced collectivization, famine, and executions. Another 20 million were victims of imprisonment, exile, and forced relocation. 172 | Talk 09:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on "well over ten million", but be that as it may, even if we agree on say 15 million, that is not "tens". For most people "several" means more than two, not more than one. Note that Britannica never says tens of millions of deaths and rightly so because all its sources are books and opinions, not peer-reviewed studies, including your mention of Roy Medvedev. Mentioning his opinion with a full quote is all good and well if you mention other estimates in detail and discuss the discrepancies. This is done in the body of the article, and cannot be done in the introduction without making it look awkward. Again if you have a reference to a study published in a peer-reviewed journal that gives an estimate of tens of millions of deaths, then you can say so in the introduction, I have no objections, because this would be a very reliable source. Interviews, websites, books are not reliable sources, even if they are written by academics. Bublick439 09:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

These estimates are always going to be rough, even when they get passed peer-review. So I am not saying that we should present Medvedev's 20 million figure as an uncontestable claim... I still think the source of our disagreement is semantics. "Tens of millions" can technically mean at least one more than 10 million. Who's assuming that the 10 million figure can only be multiplied by a whole number? At any rate, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. There is a contingent of users who will revert back to "tens of" without listening to you. Instead, they'll make the matter into a political fight. 172 | Talk 10:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That is of course wrong. Academic books can be better than articles since thay can list their sources in great detail. For example the Black Book of Communism, written by several academics, lists thousands of sources. Ultramarine 10:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to sources, what matters is quality not quantity. You are obviously not familiar with the scientific method and peer review. You can not publish any nonsense in a peer-reviewed journal because highly qualified reviewers will take your claims apart very quickly. At the same time you can publish any questionable claims in a book or on a website and cite thousands of equally questionable sources. I will copy and paste the second paragraph of this section for you: For those who are not familiar with how peer review works: when someone wants to publish a study in an accredited journal, they submit their manuscript to the editorial board and the editorial board sends the manuscript for review to at least three other unrelated researchers in the field and all three reviewers have to agree with the methods and conclusions in the study. The reviewers usually request the authors to redo some studies or use a different method or modify conclusions and when all reviewers approve the text of the manuscript, then and only then it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Bublick439 10:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Academic press also have strict requirement. There is simply no way that a short article can list thousands of sources and give long descriptions. Ultramarine 10:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With enough money you can flood the market with all sorts of false claims and "sources". In academic research, the number of sources that you cite is irrelevant, only peer-reviewed references are considered a source. Books do not undergo peer review, and publishers such as Academic press view any proposed material in terms of it commercial value, not its scientific accuracy. In academic research, if your results were not published in an accredited peer-reviewed journal, it is the same as your results do not exist. If a book cites sources that were not peer-reviewed, those kinds of sources are ignored in academia as unreliable, this applies to books, interviews and websites. With all due respect, please read the definition of scientific method and peer review in Wikipedia or somewhere else. Bublick439 16:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Unfortunately, you seem to know little about how academic press workds. Academic books are as a good a source as peer-reviewed articles. Ultramarine 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact the the term "academic book" is extremely vague, your proof by assertion and proof by repetition attempts are ridiculous. Bublick439 18:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Please read something about what academic press is. Ultramarine 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page archives

A lot of issues being brought up here have been discussed many, many times before and a quick skimming of the archives is highly recommended for every newcommer here. Actually, reading the first two-three archives covers most of the disputed points since the rest of the archive is basically just the same debates and arguments made all over again, but with slightly other participants.

I think it would be usefull to have the archives sorted by subject. The death toll debate is a frequent one, and the last 3-4 years debate on it could be put on one single page for easy access. Then we have the "Why can't we simply call him a despot/dictator/tyrann/mass murder" debate, that also comes up every few months, which could put on another archive page. And one for discussion on the intro, and so on. I don't mean to push the active and current debates out on some sub-talk page, just to have the old archived pages more available. I think I'll do that. I'll leave the current archives as they are, and just make a copy of relevant content of former discussions over in a new and topic indexed archive with a table of contents. If nobody objects, that is. Well, maybe even then ;-). Shanes 08:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Every incarnation of the intro is a very delicate consensus capable of standing for a couple of months until it's shattered by the arrival of one new user. Then the same fight plays out again, but with a new set of players... Regarding your proposal, I doubt that a topic-indexed archive will help. Most of the time the discussions involve reasonable users trying to reconcile different ideas for improving the text, as I think is the case now with the most recent newcomers. Reasonable users have always been willing to review the archive, despite the lack of an index. The problem with indexing archives involves the trolls. A topic-indexed archive might give trolls more material for disrupting Wikipedia. For example, users like User:Libertas and User:Agiantman were able to attract attention to themselves by cherry-picking their way through archives in order to misrepresent the work of other editors. At any rate, routinely rehashing the same discussion, no matter how tedious it is to longtime editors, may have some value when considering Jimbo Wales' argument about the role of "creative destruction" on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 09:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A proposal

Look, I'm gonna be kinda blunt here and say that this article is not good. The POV in some sections is very, very bad, and this is compounded by the very weak referencing. So I have a proposal: let's have all interested editors go through this article thoroughly, top to bottom, together; let's look at every sentence; let's be rigid about neutrality and sourcing for everything; let's look toward balancing out the referencing by including sources from a sympathetic perspective. With this being such an important article, I think we need to do something like this and can do it. I suggest we create a draft page for each individual section, starting with the intro first and foremost. Would there be enough people willing to participate in this to make it work? Everyking 09:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to. The editing environment is too explosive. The best I think we can do is to keep out ridiculously poorly composed and inaccurate material. The only hope of this becoming a good article is a complete rewrite by a well-read user. If I ever find the time, I'll do it. Though I won't have the time in months. If you have the time, I'm confident that you're capable of single-handedly producing a superior draft. 172 | Talk 10:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Claims and statements without any references

Many of the statements in the article and on the talk page have no valid source to back them up. This looks like a kindergarten. If you are making a statement, please give a reference to an academic journal. If you are making a statement and don't give a valid reference or give an invalid reference, this is a waste of cyberspace and cybertime. Proof by assertion is one of the silliest ways of arguing your point of view.

The standard way of validation of data in academic research is publishing your results in an accredited peer-reviewed journal in your field. A relatively small amount of data in a research article can be easily and meticulously reviewed and vetted by at least three unrelated and independent academics for accuracy and for validity of methods used. If the research paper passes the review and gets published in the specialized journal, you can be sure that its conclusions are more or less truthful and accurate. peer review

Books, webpages, and interviews cannot be peer-reviewed thoroughly and are thus considered questionable as sources in academic research. With few exceptions like Wikipedia and online academic journals, webpages are practically never peer-reviewed. Books are particularly hard to review because few academics have enough time to read the whole book several times. Types of peer-reviewed literatureTo give the same kind of thorough review to a book that is normally given to a research article, you would have to give every chapter to three different experts which can easily total up to 40 or 60 revieweres per book. This is practically never done by publishing houses prior to publication of a book. If a book contains references to peer-reviewed journals as many college textbooks do, you can sort of be sure that the statements made in the book are trustworthy. If a book refers you to other unreviewed material like books, interviews, and webpages, this is like blind leading the blind. Peer Review: Crude and Understudied, but Indispensable

One case in point is the statement in the introduction about "tens of millions of deaths" by Stalin's hand. Another case is the exaggerated claims about death toll from famine in the 1930s. Those who are making the claims do not provide a SINGLE peer-reviewed publication to back them up. Citing politically motivated books, which are plenty for all points of view, is a useless waste or time and cyberspace. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Encarta both give about 10-fold lower death toll estimates than some of the authors do in this article about Stalin. Bublick439 12:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Britannica says that Stalin's political victims were numbered in tens of millions. We should say this in our article too, in the introduction, as this is important. Drogo Underburrow 12:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a reference to a peer-reviewed study in Britannica that confirms this claim, then go ahead. Note that Britannica doesn't mention tens of millions of victims in the introduction. In addition, "victims" can easily be construed as "death toll" which is inaccurate. Ambiguous and vague language should be avoided Bublick439 13:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
EB is an encyclopedia, not a bibliography of peer-reviewed studies. EB is a valid source that satisfies Wikipedia policies that material be sourced. Drogo Underburrow 13:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you interested in finding the true death toll, or do you want to blindly pin an arbitrary death toll number on Stalin just because it "feels good"? What is your motivation? Britannica can contain errors and false claims Comparison of Britannica and Wikipedia and it is edited and updated continuously. A more reliable source would be a peer-reviewed publication in the field of history, if Britannica does not provide you with one.
I am not interested in "finding the true death toll" as that would be original research. I am only interested in reporting what sources say. However, whatever source I find, if it states that Stalin killed tens of millions, I have a feeling that you will come up with a reason why you won't accept its validity, and will challenge its use as a source. At first you said that the EB didn't give such a total; then when I looked it up, and found that it in fact did say what you said it didn't, you then decided that the EB was not a good source. I'm not going to bother finding another source. The EB is an acceptable one. My motivation is making the Wikipedia article report what valid sources say, and the EB is one of them. Drogo Underburrow 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
You can cite EB if you want, the problem is you want to multiply the statements about the death toll in EB by the factor of 10 and use the same vague language about "victims". There is no reason to replicate inaccuracies of Britannica, when you have a number of specialized journals in the field of history both in Russia and in the West. Bublick439 15:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about?? Who said anything about multiplying by ten? I want our article to say the same thing that EB says..that Stalin killed tens of millions in political murders, and up to another ten million in the Ukraine famine. Drogo Underburrow 15:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a more recent peer-reviewed study: Europe-Asia Studies, September 1996, Vol 48, No 6, p 959-987: Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s. Steven Rosefielde. It gives around 10 million deaths for some years during the 30s only. Ultramarine 14:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, how do you spell the name of the journal? I can't find it in google. thanks for your contribution anyway Bublick439 14:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Corrected. Ultramarine 14:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to read that paper right now, but to bury the hatchet, I am temporarily removing the POV label and putting "tens of millions" back, even though that article provides evidence for millions. until further debates :-) Bublick439 15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that Stalin killed "tens of millions" is a fantasy and is a blatant manifestation of POV. I find it astounding how there are not any reliable, post-Cold War sources listed on this page. J.Arch Getty in [American Historical Review] refutes sensational claims by the likes of Robert Conquest and Alexander Solzhenistyn that "tens of millions" perished in the "Great Purge" and the GULAG. Archival documents prove that in 1937-1938, there were 682,000 executions and 1 million deaths in the GULAG from 1934-1953 of which 620,000 were during the Great Patriotic War. Answer this simple question: how do these deaths come anywhere close to tens of millions? Deaths from famine have also been disputed. According to Stephen Wheatcroft and RW Davies in "Years of Hunger", excluding Kazakhstan, here were 2.5 million deaths from famien throughout USSR in 1932-1933 [Source]

2.5 million from famine, 680,000 executions, 1 million deaths from GULAG. Explain again how the sum of these amounts to tens of millions? I'll leave out the fact that the 1932-1933 famine was neither "man-made" nor was it an intention of the Soviet regime. Zvesda

Getty, Wheatcroft, and Davies, whom you cite, are legitimate scholars whose work I do not disregard... Responding to your argument, the "tens of millions" figure, even if we were to sum up all categories (famine, purges, deportations, labor camps, etc.), might or might not be too high if we were to sum up only the most conservative academic estimates posited for each category. Still, cherry-picking only the lowest estimates to add up in order to reach the most apologetic sum possible, in other words consciously struggling with the arithmetic in a desperate attempt to take us out of the tens of millions realm, is just as dubious as cherry-picking only the highest estimates in order to reach one of those sensational sums around 60 million. Almost all the possible sums are safely enough within the tens of millions of realm. On a more tactical point, I suggest that you and Bublick439 give up on fighting the "tens of millions" reference. You will never be able to establish a consensus for your proposal. From my experiences, most Wikipedia editors are either unfamiliar with post-Cold War scholars like Getty, Wheatcroft, and Davies, or even intensely suspicious of them. Wikipedia editors tend to be more familiar with best-seller authors like Conquest and Pipes-- scholars who were increasingly considered the 'traditionalist' old-guard of Russian and Soviet studies when I was a student more than three decades ago. Demand creates supply here; readers feel more comfortable with Conquest's perspective, and they will become editors to make sure that it remains dominant on the English Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you have revealed that the Wikipedia editors bear anti-Soviet and anti-Communist prejudices and use a fallacious quantity over quality method in order to try and prove those with the facts wrong ("most 'scholars' put the death toll at 20 million"). I suppose if 10 people to 1 stated that 2+2=5, we should accept their thoughts as truth only because they hold strength in numbers. One major reason why this is so severely flawed is because there is an enormous chance that the vast majority of these "scholars" derived their work i.e copy-cats from leading Cold Warriors e.g Robert Conquest. Robert Conquest was basically a Cold Warrior trend-setter that various others were inspired by. Thus, their thoughts are indistinguishable from Conquest's thoughts. It must be stated that Robert Conquest does not have a single credible source for his sensational figures while the scholars that I mentioned Getty, Wheatcroft, and Davies entirely derive their works from archival material; these scholars have not estimated. Rather, they have reported data from archives e.g 681,692 executions in the Purge rather than an "estimated 3 million". Even the anti-Communist "Black Book of Communism" of all works in regard to the Purge correctly states that the Cold-Warrior estimations were incorrect; Getty is cited in a source in their reporting of 681,692 executions. Plus, none of the scholars that I have cited are of the Post-Cold War era; "Origin of the Great Purges" by Getty was released in 1985. R.W Davies authored several works about USSR economy in the 1970s and 1980s and Wheatcroft wrote several articles in "Slavic Review" during 1980s. I am not "cherry-picking" the lowest estimates; I am reporting the facts as the Russian archives present them. There is not a single more reliable source than Russian archives. Accusations of being a "Soviet apologism" merely for reporting what Russian archives say are hollow and lean towards absurd McCarthyistic logic. These labels of "Soviet apologist" are from the western perspective that connote one is playing devil's advocate simply for debunking many of the lies and myths about USSR. From the Communist perspective, you are an apologist for western imperialism.Zvesda

The factor of "tens" in Stalin's death poll is a direct result of tens of years of anticommunist propaganda and Cold War stereotypes, where historical sources and documents were ignored in sake of political goals. Hope wikipedians will find the way to stay away from baised unidentified sources.

Thank you Zvesda for pointing out the falacy of this petit bourgeois Trotskyite conspiracy by decadent western intellectuals to discredit our glorious leader Joseph Stalin. Surely a totalitarian state could not alter its records some time between Stalin’s death and the collapse of the Soviet system. John Keep’s article in Europe-Asia Studies [Wheatcroft and Stalin’s Victims. Vol 51.6 Sept 1999] points out that Wheatcroft’s method for counting Stalin’s victims is deeply flawed, casting grave doubts on accuracy of the number of victims supplied by Wheatcroft.

Poem paragraph

If we are keeping the new paragraph about poems, what does this mean: "the grant under the theory of literature"? Who is granting what to whom? Does "hrestomatiju" mean "the collection of the best samples of the Georgian literature"? And what does this mean: "Joseph Stalin devoted by R.Eristavi's"? Does it mean Stalin's poem is placed next to Eristavi's poem? I'm not criticizing the paragraph's subject matter, just the translation. Whatever you want to write about Stalin, I only want to make it look as if an American had written it. Art LaPella 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, if nobody knows what that paragraph means, would it be OK to remove it? Art LaPella 15:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Young Dzhugashvili did write verses. http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtopic.php?p=85456#85456 --85.141.202.84 16:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've found were Jaro.p took it - in the bottom of this page with Stalin's verses (in Russian) there is a sort of footnote: http://zero.thewalls.ru/htdocs/tirani/coco/stihi.htm Here you are my try:
"The verses written by young Stalin met with public notice. In 1901 Georgian public figure M. Kelendzheridze, who made educational book on language arts, put in the book among the best examples of Georgian classics a verse under Soselo signature. In 1907 the same M. Kelendzheridze had published 'Georgian chrestomathy or collection of the best exemplars of Georgian language arts' (volume 1) in which (on the page 43) he put a Stalin's poem dedicated to Eristavi."
(I guess here they meant Rafael Eristavi - Georgian poet. 1824-1901. And BTW I've found that in the Soviet Literature Encyclopedia they called Kelendzheridze reactionist-clericalist :) ) --85.141.202.84 17:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I combined the two versions and expressed them in natural English on the main article page. Art LaPella 19:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing footnotes

The two first paragraphs in the first chapter [5] include references "Archer 11" and "Hoober 15", however there are only two sources in the references [6] non of which seem to apply. I think I managed to find who added those references [7], those come from a Senior Research Paper by SteveBob but he did not cite them properly. SteveBob does not seem to be active since this is his only edit. There for I am going to remove them. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 13:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

George Orwell

Once wrote:

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

Orwell must have peered into the future and read the Wikipedia article on Stalin. - Drogo Underburrow 04:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Marshall Tukhachevsky

the Marshall was fully rehabilitated by Khuruschev. The evidence against him was fabricated by Heydrich and leaked to Stalin by way of the Czechs. See article on Tukhachevsky. The article was way too pro-Stalin and had to be toned down.--Will314159 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes introduced by Theocide

Khruschchev never held the office of a General Secretary, since such an office was cancelled after the XXth Party Congress. He was First Secretary up until his forced resignation.

The office of General Secretary was reinstated during the reign of Brezhnev.--Theocide 02:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Changed place of birth from "Gori, Georgia" to "Gori, Georgia, Russian Empire". There was no such country as "Georgia" at the time of Stalin's birth.--Theocide 02:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Changed the "Confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities under his orders led to a famine between 1932 and 1934, especially in Ukraine (see Holodomor), resulting in up to ten million deaths" to "Confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities under his orders led to a famine between 1932 and 1934, especially in Ukraine (see Holodomor), Kazakhstan and the Northern Caucasus region resulting in up to ten million deaths" --Theocide 03:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


The part about Stalin's childhood is completely unsatisfactory and consists greatly of hearsay, so tipycal for Radzinsky. I removed the abstract "Rarely seeing his family and drinking heavily, Vissarion often beat his wife and small son. One of Stalin's friends from childhood wrote, "Those undeserved and fearful beatings made the boy as hard and heartless as his father." The same friend also wrote that he never saw him cry [citation needed].

Another of his childhood friends, Iremashvili, felt that the beatings by Stalin's father gave him a hatred of authority. He also said that anyone with power over others reminded Stalin of his father's cruelty."' so as not to overburden the already humongous text with such doubtful notions.--Theocide 03:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


"Even when speaking in Russian, their Russian teachers mocked Stalin and his classmates because of their Georgian accents. His peers were mostly the sons of affluent priests, officials, and merchants". - I removed the first part. While some Russians DO make fun of Georgian, Azerbaijani and Armenian accents, there is no proof that there was such a problem in a (sic!) Church School in Georgia during the end of the XIXth Century.--Theocide 03:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


"Although Stalin later sought to hide his Georgian origins," - Removed this part since it is an extremely doubtful notion. While he rarely spoke Georgian, a Georgian with such a typical accent and look of a Georgian simply couldn't even hope to pass for a Russian.--Theocide 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


"In 1901, the Georgian clergyman M. Kelendzheridze wrote an educational book on language arts," - removed the word "reactionary". This term is too loaded to be considered neutral.--Theocide 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


"In addition to the small stipend from the scholarship he was also paid for singing in the choir. Although his mother wanted him to be a priest (even after he had become leader of the Soviet Union), he attended seminary not because of any religious vocation, but because it was one of the few educational opportunities available as the Tsarist government of Russia was wary of establishing a university in Georgia" - rewrote the last part to go like "but because of the lack of a university under the Tsarist goverment of Russia". I seriously doubt that whoever wrote the last part can give any sources proving that the Tsarist government was wary of anything of such kind.--Theocide 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Corrected the "Djugashvili", "Djughashvili" and such like so that the name would be the same - "Dzhugashvili" - both for Joseph's father AND for himself. --Theocide 04:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


"His son finally shot himself because of Stalin's incredible harshness toward him, but survived. After this, Stalin said "He can't even shoot straight". Yakov served in the Red Army and was captured by the Germans. They offered to exchange him for a German General, but Stalin turned the offer down, allegedly saying "A lieutenant is not worth a General"; others credit him with allegedly saying "I have no son," to this offer, and Yakov is said to have died running into an electric fence in the camp where he was being held.

This, however, is the "official report," and to this day his cause of death is unknown. Nonetheless, there are many who believe his death was a suicide. Since many families of the Soviet Union had sons in German camps, Stalin could not have exchanged his son without losing public support. He may have sacrificed his son as a demonstration that he was one with the people". - once again, too many rumours which serve no real purpose since they show no sources for any credible version except the official one. I suggest seriously cutting down on rumours, hearsay and interpretation of actions. --Theocide 04:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


"who died in 1932; she may have committed suicide by shooting herself after a quarrel with Stalin, leaving a suicide note which according to their daughter was "partly personal, partly political".[1]

Officially, she died of an illness, but some rumors claimed that Stalin killed her. With her, he had two children: a son, Vassili, and a daughter, Svetlana." - Same goes for this abstract. Does the author wish to present any and all versions of any event connected to Stalin no matter whether there are facts to back up the version or not? I wonder, if the same author were to be entrusted to write an article on JFK, would he list all possible versions of conspiracies against JFK starting with KGB and cubans and ending with the CIA and mafia? If we don't know what really happened and have serious reasons for doubts, we should write that we don't know what really happened. If there is any other version by any other credible historians, we should name him.Once again, I suggest removing these "some rumours claimed", "may have committed", etc. and stick to the facts. If there are no objections, I'll do it in a couple of days or so.--Theocide 04:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


After declining Franco-British missions to Moscow in hopes that the USSR would enter a treaty of Polish defense with them,

When did he decline anything of such kind? Any source? According to Ponomarev A.N., an aircraft expert who published his recollection in 1980, he was present during the negotiations between the Franco-British military mission in Moscow and Soviet military presented by Voroshilov. And according to his recollections, Voroshilov stated that he was authorized to sign a mutual defense pact with the Allies, while admiral Draks of the British and general Dumenk of the French (not sure about spelling - hope someone will correct me) stated that they were authorized to begin negotiations but not to sign anything and neither did they have any exact ideas about mutual defense. http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/ponomarev_an/05.html I couldn't find any link in English about the details of the Franco-British military mission though. --Theocide 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had a discussion on this subject some time ago. May-be you'll find my source their worth of note (Talk:Viktor_Suvorov#Tripartite_negotiations). The author seems to maintain that Voroshilov's sudden demands were only a an excuse to broke the negotiations. (It is known very well, that Soviets had begun rapproachment with the nazis long time before the tripartite negotiations; also, MRP can hardly be regarded as an ex prompt decision). --Constanz - Talk 07:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

While the discussion is quite interesting, the author of the article seems biased and unwilling to show sources and first-hand information. What were the conditions of a treaty proposed by Bennet? And what are the details of the treaty proposed by Voroshilov? We are given only interpretation, chips and bits of the original proposals and no facts whatsoever. Therefore, I suggest replacing the "After declining Franco-British missions to Moscow in hopes that the USSR would enter a treaty of Polish defense with them" with "After failure of Soviet and Franco-British talks on mutual defense pact in Moscow," because it has a more neutral tone and because the real process of negotiations is too hazy since both sides accuse each other of being the reason for the failure.--Theocide 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thing is that i gave only a short skecth of a 40 page article (which mostly concerns effects on the Baltic states). After failure of Soviet and Franco-British talks on mutual defense pact in Moscow," is very much acceptable.--Constanz - Talk 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to see the whole article if it has the original text.--Theocide 09:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
as for the author of the article seems biased and unwilling to show sources and first-hand information. this can be attributed to me and my summarising, for I gave mostly reference (and my comments) on the talk page, while not directly citing. The article is regrettably only available in my native language.--Constanz - Talk 15:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WWII

The part on WWII pays too much attention to Viktor Suvorov's ideas and supposed plans of the Soviet command prior to WWII. This is just a theory, one of the many.I believe it should be moved from the main body of the article to viktor suvorov article. What is the logic in posting the same kind of information in two articles anyway? Why not just write something along the lines of "Viktor Suvorov in his book M-day states that the Soviet Union was planning an offensive" and remove all further details? --Theocide 05:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The thesis has gathered proof by academic circles (let us not forget the first remarkable Stalin biography by Edvard Radzinski and Meltyukhov's book, which many regard as having proven the offensive thesis by archive materials.
2. We should indeed mention Stalin's role in the World War2 here in this article as well, just as Hilter's role in the war is mentioned in the corresponding article. --Constanz - Talk 07:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that Suvorov's ideas laid the foundation for a more serious and less biased research of the subject by other authours. But the thing is, I see no reason for repeating the same thing thrice as is it is done in the WWII part:

1. According to a controversial Russian author Viktor Suvorov living in the UK, Stalin expressed in the speech an expectation that the war would be the best opportunity to weaken both the Western nations and Nazi Germany, and make Germany suitable for Sovietization 2. An alternative theory suggested by Viktor Suvorov claims that Stalin had made aggressive preparations from the late 1930s on and was about to invade Germany in summer 1941. Thus, he believes Hitler only managed to forestall Stalin and the German invasion was in essence a pre-emptive strike 3. A controversial theory put forward by Viktor Suvorov asserts that Stalin had been preparing an invasion of Germany while neglecting preparations for defensive warfare, which left Soviet forces vulnerable despite their heavy concentration near the border.

The whole three can be put into one to save space. Besides, constant repeating of virtually the same notion with a bit different wording seems to be senseless and tiresome. I suggest a single mentioning in the beginning of the WWII part, something along the lines of ""According to a controversial Russian author Viktor Suvorov living in the UK, Stalin expressed in the speech an expectation that the war would be the best opportunity to weaken both the Western nations and Nazi Germany, and make Germany suitable for "Sovietization", but eventually these offensive plans made the USSR unprepared for defense, causing big losses during the initial stage of war".

Well, we can't heap everything up in one sentence. The speech is not a Suvorov's find, so one needn't connect it directly to this guy (we might mention the speech first on the occasion of MRP and then, later, introduce Suvorov plus add the notion that his controversial theory has been discussed by many and Radzinski/Meltyukhov have developed it futher).--Constanz - Talk 08:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

While this abstract: the possible Soviet pre-emptive or aggressive preparations were subject to heated discussion among the post-Soviet Russian military historians throughout the last decade. Some like Edvard Radzinsky (Stalin: The First In-Depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives) and Mikhail Meltyukhov believe Stalin was indeed planning an invasion (see Stalin's Missed Chance), while there are still others (M.Gareyev) who reject it. Should be completely removed and replaced with a link to Stalin's Missed Chance, Meltyukhov and Viktor Suvorov. Overburdening of the WWII part with some historical theories looks completely unnecessary, especially when the the main idea has already been conveyed to the reader and the interested party can simply follow the given links for further info. --Theocide 08:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


OK, I do not object to changes you've made so far.--Constanz - Talk 07:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep everyone posted on further improvements. --Theocide 08:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On March 5, 1940, Stalin signed an order of execution for more than 25,700 Polish "nationalist, educators and counterrevolutionary" activists in the parts of the Ukraine and Belarus republics that had been annexed from Poland. This event has become known as the Katyn Massacre; over 20,000 were Polish officers. Actually, even according to Polish sources it was Beriya not Stalin who signed it. I changed it to "Beriya signed an order" for now.--Theocide 08:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


If you go here you will see that David Glantz dosent agree with Viktor Suvorov. http://www.consimworld.com/newsroom/archives/morenews/glantz.19981001.gen.html (Deng 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC))
This disapproval is well known. It has been claimed that Glantz actually wrote this book with the aim of refuting Suvorov; unfortunately Glantz' book does not directly refute one thesis after another, which may be concluded from see e.g review by hr. Robert Stuhr. Another review, an academic one, is also interesting for its comparisons of Glantz and Suvorov [8].--Constanz - Talk 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


The reviews on amazon can be made by anyone who is a customer so that is a very bad thing to use as a source. And the second one is just made by a student at a university (Deng 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Papismedov

Is there any verifiable source for the story about Papismedov (the Jew who is supposed to have helped Stalin in his early years and was later received at the Kremlin? I can't find one. It sounds like an 'Uncle Joe' fairy tale. If it can't be verified, it should be removed. --Smerus 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this story.--Smerus 08:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Pismamedov David (Russian), with a 2000 book as source, referring to a 1996 artricle by Edvard Radzinsky. At the same time in my opinion Radzinsky's bio of Stalin reads kind of fantastic in some places, not to say that the author has some pet theories to stretch facts upon them. `'mikka (t) 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Is this sentence correct? It seems 'either' should be replaced with 'neither':

In Asia, the Red Army had overrun Manchuria in the last month of the war and then also occupied Korea above the 38th Parallel, with either the West's invitation or agreement.

Also, this sentence is terribly stuffy; I can't even discern its meaning without a thesaurus.

Artists and writers vied with each other in egregious_sycophancy, crediting Stalin with almost god-like qualities, and suggesting he single-handedly won the Second World War.
I changed "egregrious sycophancy" to "fawning devotion". This article attracts foreign editors, so you could help by scanning the article for other phrases that sound a little unusual in English. Art LaPella 01:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Death toll

Again, can anybody give a definition of the term? I will remove it until the exact definition presented.--Nixer 13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you not like the one to be found at death toll? We could discuss further if we need more clarification.--Deville (Talk) 13:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we say, for example, that number of shot in the USSR during Stalin's rule is a part of death toll of Stalin?--Nixer 18:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd say if someone was shot by government forces, yeah. --Deville (Talk) 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Imagine a war situation: in a difficult moment there is a panicer, who claims that there is no way other than to capitulate. He was shot. If he was not shot, the casualities propably will be much greather. What's the death toll of the action? What's death toll of killing maniac? So I suppose we can talk about "death toll" only in the case of killed unjustly, dont you think so? Anyway this term is biased and non-encyclopedic.--Nixer 09:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, it would have sufficed to knock him out, like it would have happened in a civilised society. But, of course, according to you, whatever Stalin did was excusable and justifiable somehow.Dietwald 09:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Look in the archives of this talk page and you will see many other discussions (Deng 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Birthday

Why does it say the 18th of dec and not the 21st

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/29-12-2005/9457-stalin-0

(Deng 14:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

| This reference claims that the "Birth register of the Uspensky church in Gori fixed the day of Stalin's birth on Dec. 6 [18], 1878"
There seem to be multiple sources out there that claim he changed his birthday for whatever reason.
--C33 17:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the page I linked to a russian newspaper, but maybe he did change it or maybe the church records from 1878 are wrong (Deng 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Page name change

I was a little surprised to see the name change. Was there discussion on this somewhere? In any case, is it even correct to say Stalin spelled his name "Josef" instead of "Joseph"? Would he ever have written his name in Roman script? I'm pretty sure he spelled his name Иосиф.--Deville (Talk) 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In anything I've read, it's been "Joseph" when Romanized. Most of the page also says Joseph. I propose it's moved back to Joseph Stalin. 204.9.144.52 14:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. The transliteration "Josef" is no improvement over "Joseph" in approximating the pronunciation of the name in Russian ("Yos-SEEF"). KonradWallenrod 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Eek. I already went ahead and changed all the Josephs to Josefs, just to be consistent. I didn't like having both Joseph and Josef on the article. Should they be changed back? --C33 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
As both a linguist and an historian, the transliteration "Josef" is most appropriate in that is maintains a letter-for-letter correspondence between the Cyrilic "Φ" and Latin "f". However, in terms of what the article should be titled, I believe WP guidelines specify that it should be the spelling that is most common in English-language Accedemia. I believe that would still be "Josef", although I would have to do the research to be sure.--WilliamThweatt 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The google test comes in at ~659,000 for "Josef Stalin" and ~1,370,000 for "Joseph Stalin". A cursory overview shows no wikipedia mirrors on the first page of either set of results. siafu 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem with "Josef" over "Joseph" is that, although more accurate, some people might not recognize the J isn't pronounced as an English J, but an English Y (actually, it's more like an I, but that's beside the point). Joseph is better simply because it's the most common English transliteration (and people inevitably pronounce it "DZHO-sif", as per the English equivalent). So yeah, I know it's already been moved, but in case someone disputes this in the future, there's my two cents. --Yossarian 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Secretary or General Secretary?

Please note that, beginning with October 1952 (the 19th Congress of CPSU), Stalin's position in the Party was no longer General Secretary but just Secretary of the Central Committee of CPSU. This is the fact noted in most contemporary encyclopedias, as well as in Stalin's obituaries in March 1953. I'm not really sure what exactly happened, but it seems that the position was abolished, then to be restored in September 1953 as the First Secretary. Later Soviet encyclopedias gloss over this little detail, but contemporary newspapers leave no doubt.

There is no doubt of course that Stalin remained the country's dictator between Oct.'52 and March'53 (and he remained the Prime Minister, as well), but it's just a matter of precision and detail. Thanks. ouital77 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"accepted by conventional historians number of deaths"

Ultramarine, IMO this passage in the "death toll" section

It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if war casualities, Nazi policy in the occupied territory, famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and repressions are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred from unnnatural causes under Stalin is in the millions,

is indeed correct. Don't historians agree that it's measured in millions? (it's certainly not thousands or billions, right?)

It's then continued in the following paragraphs and explains that there's a disagreement over how many millions is that - just a few or more than 50.--Poison sf 16:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Full quote:

It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if war casualities, Nazi policy in the occupied territory, famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and repressions are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred from unnnatural causes under Stalin is in the millions, while according to Soviet archives, the number of sentenced to death, shot and executed for any crimes during Stalin's rule does not exceed 800 thousand[9].

There is certainly no agreement on that this is the number found in the archieves. Ultramarine 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there historians disagreeing with this number? I know that there's a book claiming 20 millions toll based on archives, but it's not about sentenced to execution, it's about combined toll of famines, death from conditions in camps etc. This, theoretically, is not in conflict with the number of documented executions given in the study.--Poison sf 16:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Note that the book states 20 millions, not including deaths caused by combat or killed by Nazis. 20 million deaths caused by Communists from famine, exections, Gulags, and deportations. Another source, Europe-Asia Studies, September 1996, Vol 48, No 6, p 959-987: Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s. Steven Rosefielde. It gives around 10 million deaths for some years during the 30s only. Ultramarine 16:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
For the purpose of determining whether the paragraph in question is factually correct, it's important to consider the cause of deaths. I.e. whether somebody disputes that the toll from the exact mentioned cause (execution) recorded in archives is what it's claimed to be.--Poison sf 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
"As Table 1 shows, popular estimates of executions in the Great Purges of 1937-1938 vary from 500,000 to 7 million."[10] Ultramarine 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we quote that article, then we need to quote this too

Anton Antonov-Ovseenko, Robert Conquest, Steven Rosefielde, and others have posited relatively high estimates (see Table 1). On the other hand, Stephen Wheatcroft and others working from the same sources have put forth lower totals. Both “high” and “low” estimators have bemoaned the lack of solid archival evidence

So, many do not attempt to claim what is documented in archives --Poison sf 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia who should decide who is right. We should only report the differences among researchers. Ultramarine 17:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
We should also report the background about the studies. For example that the study is based on archives or that it's not. I don't know, maybe it's different for somebody else, but for me such information is of primary importance when I read about something like this. The facts are that there's a study which claims to have established a number of documented executions from NKVD archives. It can be believed or not, that's up to one's personal choice. There're also other estimates of executions, which don't claim to be based on Soviet archives (or were published before there was be a possibility to study Soviet archives, that's, I belive, post 1991).--Poison sf 17:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
And as noted, for example another archive study state the Communists were responsible for 10 million deaths in 30s alone. Ultramarine 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Neutrality and factual accuracy

Constant reverts [11] to a version containing numerous errors, like that Wrecker sensus showed a deficit of only 6 million, when it was 14. Or removing a source showing that Stalin ignored intelligence information regarding the German attack. Please explain. Ultramarine 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Wrecker census, but I too think that the line about Stalin ignoring intelligence etc is dubious and one sided. IMO anything more than "many claim that Stalin ignored" or something like that is POV. Why it's dubios?
  • intelligence: I remember reading that some of it was coming from agents considered possibly compromised (and it wasn't groundless back then to assume that Allies would be interested in supplying disinformation through compromised agents to provoke clash between USSR and Germany to open a second from). Also some of it, if I remember correctly, was contradictory (changing the date of attack by Hitler may have contributed to confusion). Soviet intelligence was also AFAIK monitoring the preparations to possible winter war by Germans, in anticipation that Germany will need a lot of special preparations to winter conditions in Russia. But that didn't happen (as we now know, it later proved to be a lot of a problem for Wehrmacht). So, although the conclusion made by Soviets was wrong, but it's POV to say it was just "ignored". As it's not uncommon to see such claim, it can be mentioned, but keeping in mind that it's a point of view, not a fact.
  • repressions of "experienced" officers: it's important to consider that WW2 included many revolutionary war technologies and tactics. So there were very little "experienced" officers with that sort of experience of what was to come in WW2. As we can see, the Allies, who did not do any repressions, had no better luck early on. We can see same disasters early on at the Western front. And at the Eastern Front we can add unanticipated surprise attack. So again, since this is a pretty common claim, mention it but please present it as one of the points of view, which it is.--Poison sf 19:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:No original research. I have provided sources for my statements. Please do also for your claims. Extremely strange to insists, for example, that the Wrecker census showed 6 million missing when the source clearly states 14. Ultramarine 19:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


This has been discussed before and looking into the archives will show this. (Deng 20:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Sensational Death Toll

How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million and in 1937 another census found a population of between 162 and 163 million. This was 14 million less than the projected population value and was suppressed as a "wrecker's census" with the census takers severely punished.

This is completely untrue. According to the net increase (births minus deaths) of the 1926-1928 period, the USSR population would have risen to 168 million by 1937, not a bloated 176 million. This is a stark exaggeration. Source

Since "the margin of error" with regard to the number of Stalin's victims is virtually impossible to narrow down to a universally accepted figure, various historians have come up with extremely varying (15) estimates of the number of victims, from under 10 million to over 50 million deaths.

Mattthew White whose work is cited above is nobody important and his gathering of dubious sources including American imperialist Zbigniew Brzesinski is not worthy of consideration. If famine, executions, and the GULAG are taken into account, then Stalin killed about 3 million. All this data is gathered from Russian archives. The documents in concern are RGAE 1562/329/108, GARF 9401/1/4157, 201-205; and GARF 9414/1/1155, 2-3

Faminesource by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies:

Purge and GULAG sourceby J. Arch Getty:

None of the above consist of estimates. They are all recorded facts.

Zvesda

I find it interesting that Zbigniew Brzesinski is considered an imperialist by Zvesda. What exactly about Brzesinski is imperialist? As a member of the Carter Administration (one of the more dovish administrations in U.S. history) his actions seem anti-imperialist to me, especially his role in promoting universal human rights. Zvesda, you smear scholars opposed to your revisionist view with terms like “imperialist” and insist on the accuracy of Soviet era records, despite the fact that these records have clearly been altered. (ex. There are no official Soviet records of Khrushchev’s actions in Ukraine during the 1930s, these records were probably destroyed when Khrushchev assumed power.) I must enquire, Zvesda, are you now, or have you ever been in the pay of either the Soviet Union or the Russian Federation?


  • How it is possible at all to estimate number of killed (if death toll is number of killed) from demographic statistics?--Nixer 07:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, we are supposed to create articles that tell what the sides of an issue are, not what is true and false in controversial disputed issues. Therefore, space should be given in the article for the historians who say that Stalin is the greatest mass murderer in history; simply because we have to report that side of the issue.Drogo Underburrow 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that data from Russia's archives have proved these flatulent estimations of 50 million dead to be utterly false. This must immediately be changed. If I were to ask you to break down these 50 million dead per category, you'd be unable to do so. The three carefully scrutinised parts of Stalin's rule was the famine of 1932-1933 that claimed a documented 2.5 million lives, the GULAG that during peace time had 380,000 deaths of which the vast majority were non-political prisones, and the Yezhovschina during which there were 680,000 executions. Now, tell me how these figures accumulate to 50 million or even to 20 million. I've listed sources above. Zvesda

For example the Black Book of Communism uses archive data and shows 20 millions. Ultramarine 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Black Book" alleges that 6 million died from famine, which is an exaggeration as exposed by Wheatcroft and Davies in "Years of Hunger" [Source]. Additionally, the "Black Book" (correctly) stated that 680,000 were executed during the Purge. It also correctly states that 1 million died in the GULAG. The final result of 20 million dead does not remotely correspond to the sum of these categories. Zvesda

I have read the book and agrees with it and its extensive sources. And J. Arch Getty notes that Alec Nove estmates 9,5 million deaths only in 30s.[12] Ultramarine 23:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, the person with the best access to archieves, estimated at least 30-35 million deaths in the Soviet Union. See his book A century of violence in Soviet Russia. Ultramarine 23:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Those estimates have long been discredited. They have proven to have been extremely exaggerative. Zvesda

Your opinion. I disagree. See also this, for another estimate with detailed sources: [13] Ultramarine 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it is a fact that these "estimates" do not correspond even remotely to figures from the archives. They have proven to be exaggerative. Zvesda

Again, your opinion. As noted, both the Black Book of Communism and Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev uses archive material. And no one has had better access than Yakovlev, who had access also to the archives still denied other researchers, so his estimate is probably the best. Ultramarine 00:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yakovlev had political motives to eaggerate the numbers.--Nixer 07:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You still don't understand In Wikipedia, editors arn't supposed to decide what is true, then delete the "false" views. In Wikipedia, we simply report what others say on an issue. It doesn't matter if what they say is true or false, its not our job to judge them. Its only our job to report what the views are. Its a fact that Western historians SAY that Stalin killed people, and its our job to report what they SAY in the article. That's all. Argueing if its "true" is beside the point. Understand? This is not negotiable...its the law of Wikipedia, called NPOV. When you delete material that reports what valid historians SAY, you are being obstructive. Arguing about what is "true" here on this talk page is a waste of time, because that's not the job of Wikipedia editors.Drogo Underburrow 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that Stalin did not kill people. Rather, I submitted a plausable death toll. With questionable statements like, "Western historians generally believe", YOU ARE TAKING A POV. The thoughts of western historians connoted to be infallable are given more emphasis than others. When you use "valid historians", you are taking a POV. According to many conventional historians including J.Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, Gabor Rittersporn, Mark Tauger, and Viktor Zemskov, these so-called historians' material has been discredited. Yet, the views of these have been omitted from this article.

Famine Source : RGAE 1562/329/108 . This is reported by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies in 2004's "Years of Hunger"

Purge and GULAG source GARF 9401/1/4157, 201-205 for the Purge; GARF 9414/1/1155, 2-3 for GULAG. This was reported by J.Arch Getty in an article that appeared in "Slavic Review" in 1993.

For the famine, there were about 2.5 million deaths. For the purge, there were 680,000 executions. For the GULAG, there were 380,000 deaths during peace time of which at least 75% were common criminals. The death toll can be summed up as roughly 4 million. Therefore, these estimations of tens of millions are INFLATED. They do not correspond to documented material. That is a fact. If any of this is wrong, show facts that are preferrably derived from the archives that say why.

Zvesda

And there are many sources which disagree, as noted previously. I agree with Drogo Underburrow. Ultramarine 01:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, prove it. Show documents from the archives that are contrary to what I presented. Spare me of this "so and so estimates" nonesense as material like this is politically-motivated.

Zvesda

See the references in for example the Black Book of Communism. Ultramarine 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the "Black Book" presents figures for the Purge and GULAG that correspond to what J.Arch Getty and Viktor Zemskov reported in their 1993 article for "Slavic Review". For the famine, the "Black Book" exaggerates the total death toll as shown by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies. So then do 1 million GULAG deaths and 680,000 Purge executions come to a figure of 20 million?

Zvesda

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. Wikipedia should not present a particular view advocated by some. Ultramarine 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Note also that your table only mentions registered deaths. The authors estimate the true number to be about 6 million deaths, a number similar to the usual ones.[14] Ultramarine 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it agreed here that our job is not to decide what is true and what is false, but to accurately represent in the article the views of historians, regardless of wether we feel that those views are true or false? Drogo Underburrow 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ultramarine 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not representing the views of historians manifested by your constant obstruction of my rectifications. This needs to be balanced out by posting an apolitically low death toll and a mainstream western anti-Communist death toll.

In regard to your attempt in trying to prove me wrong about Wheatcroft and Davies's death toll, there was not a registration system in Kazakhstan where an *estimated* 1.5 million died in a SEPARATE famine during 1931-1933. An additional 300,000 died died in the labour camps during the famine which of course irrelevant to the standard population.

Zvesda

Extremely selective material. Ignored is for instance Europe-Asia Studies, September 1996, Vol 48, No 6, p 959-987: Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s. Steven Rosefielde. It gives around 10 million deaths for some years during the 30s only. And again, no good explanation for ignoring the Black Book of Communism. Again, the role of Wikipedia is not to do research and find the truth, but to report what real researchers think. And their findings certainly vary. Ultramarine 20:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The article now contains numerous gross errors and pov deletions, like that Wrecker sensus showed a deficit of only 6 million, when it was 14. Or removing sourced showing that Stalin ignored intelligence information regarding the German attack. Please explain. Ultramarine 20:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Those questions have been answered just scroll up and/or look in the archives or look at your own talk page archive 3 last paragraph. And YOU deleted sourced parts which said things that dont support your POW so it is clear that you have no intrest "reporting what real researchers think" but only want to push your own POW (Deng 21:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
They have not been answered. Explain why the six respected researchers who wrote the Black Book of Communism should be ignored. Europe-Asia Studies, September 1996, Vol 48, No 6, p 959-987: Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s. Steven Rosefielde. It gives around 10 million deaths for some years during the 30s only. Selectively giving only one view is a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. Giving factually incorrect statements, like, 6 million deaths instead of 14, is a violation of Wikipedia:Factual accuracy. Ultramarine 21:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


The only one violating is you, Zvesda answered all your questions I could ctrl c ctrl v his answers but if you cant be bothered to scroll up and/or read the archives and your own talk page then you wont probably be bothered to read what I ctrl c ctrl v (Deng 21:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
I see no answer. Please restate it. Again, you are violating Wikipedia:Factual accuracy and Wikipedia:NPOV by stating gross inaccuracies and excluding views by researchers you do not like. Ultramarine 21:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
How can you state 6 million for the census, when the source clearly state "The proof came with the 1937 census, which came up with a population (163-164 million) 14 million less than what the government had projected (a 3 million [2%] per year increase from the 1926 figure of 147 million; modern readers should be aware that such high growth rates were normal in the decades before cheap and universally available birth control). 3 of the missing 14 million might simply be births that didn't take place in a time of trauma, but the other 11 million have a bloodier provenance. The 1937 census was suppressed, and its directors arrested as saboteurs."[15] Ultramarine 21:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


You are the one violating Wikipedia:NPOV you are the one violating by removeing any source that says anything that dosent fit your POW.
YOU ARE WRONG WHEN YOU SAY THIS
It was hindered by Stalin's purge of experienced military officers and his denial of the intelligence warning of a German attack.
Why are you wrong?
First the Soviet army grew from 1939 from 1.8 million to 5.4 million in 1941 but the officer corps did not grow in the same rate.
Second you have been answered on your talk page.
"You insist that the supposed fact of Stalin not making good use of intelligence and that leading to the military disaster in the early stage of the war, must be included. I looked over the source, you site to support that claim, but I'm afraid to say it's quiet unconvincing. It says that intelligence of provisional date of an attack was provided several months in advance. I know that, but how does this imply that Stalin took no measures to prepare for the possible invasion? In fact, the armaments production in the Soviet Union was on increase during the last pre-war year. Then the author of this article claims that "the precise date and time of the invasion were revealed by a reliable source in Berlin fully three days before the Germans attacked." Maybe so, although I have no idea where the author derived that "fact" from. The conventional historian agree that multiple warning from multiple spies were forwarded to Moscow throughout May and June 1941 and all claimed the invasion would take place on a different date. Therefore it could not have been possible on the part of Soviet leadership to know the exact date on which the attack would take place. Finally, even if the precise date of an attack was available, what difference would it make if it came three days before? Yes, troops were not in defensive positions and planes weren't camouflaged. That could explain the initial German victories, but not their successes all the way into December. Therefore, I insist that your opinion on this subject must be included in the article not as a fact but a supposition. Thanks. NapoleonIII 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)"
And all of your questions were answered by Zvesda
I will ctrl c ctrl v his answeres which can be found just a few lines up but since you cant be bothered to scroll upp then i must copy them from a few lines up
Mattthew White whose work is cited above is nobody important and his gathering of dubious sources including American imperialist Zbigniew Brzesinski is not worthy of consideration. If famine, executions, and the GULAG are taken into account, then Stalin killed about 3 million. All this data is gathered from Russian archives. The documents in concern are RGAE 1562/329/108, GARF 9401/1/4157, 201-205; and GARF 9414/1/1155, 2-3
Faminesource by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies:
Purge and GULAG sourceby J. Arch Getty:
None of the above consist of estimates. They are all recorded facts.
For the famine, there were about 2.5 million deaths. For the purge, there were 680,000 executions. For the GULAG, there were 380,000 deaths during peace time of which at least 75% were common criminals. The death toll can be summed up as roughly 4 million. Therefore, these estimations of tens of millions are INFLATED. They do not correspond to documented material. That is a fact. If any of this is wrong, show facts that are preferrably derived from the archives that say why.
Like I said, prove it. Show documents from the archives that are contrary to what I presented. Spare me of this "so and so estimates" nonesense as material like this is politically-motivated.
Once again, the "Black Book" presents figures for the Purge and GULAG that correspond to what J.Arch Getty and Viktor Zemskov reported in their 1993 article for "Slavic Review". For the famine, the "Black Book" exaggerates the total death toll as shown by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies. So then do 1 million GULAG deaths and 680,000 Purge executions come to a figure of 20 million?


You are not representing the views of historians manifested by your constant obstruction of my rectifications. This needs to be balanced out by posting an apolitically low death toll and a mainstream western anti-Communist death toll.
In regard to your attempt in trying to prove me wrong about Wheatcroft and Davies's death toll, there was not a registration system in Kazakhstan where an *estimated* 1.5 million died in a SEPARATE famine during 1931-1933. An additional 300,000 died died in the labour camps during the famine which of course irrelevant to the standard population.
As can be seen you were proven wrong by him and now that he is gone you are trying to add your POW
(Deng 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
Again lots of claims but only two sources. Please understand that you opinion is original research unless you have sources. I have shown several other sources, including a peer-reviwed article, giving opposing views. Wikipedia:NPOV demands that all views should be included. And you have still not explained why Wikipedis should contain obvious false statement, like the the 6 million instead of 14 million from the census.Ultramarine 21:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Only two sources ooh really? You have given internet references and some other dodgy referencers. Demands all views, ooh really then why did you remove this section "It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if war casualities, Nazi policy in the occupied territory, famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and repressions are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred from unnnatural causes under Stalin is in the millions, while according to Soviet archives, the number of sentenced to death, shot and executed for any crimes during Stalin's rule does not exceed 700 thousand " Which PROVES WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that you have no interest in a balanced article but ONLY in pushing your own POW. And all of your sources seem to crumble when they come under scrutiny do they not? For example the "Black Book" presents figures for the Purge and GULAG that correspond to what J.Arch Getty and Viktor Zemskov reported in their 1993 article for "Slavic Review". For the famine, the "Black Book" exaggerates the total death toll as shown by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies. So then do 1 million GULAG deaths and 680,000 Purge executions come to a figure of 20 million
AND
"You insist that the supposed fact of Stalin not making good use of intelligence and that leading to the military disaster in the early stage of the war, must be included. I looked over the source, you site to support that claim, but I'm afraid to say it's quiet unconvincing. It says that intelligence of provisional date of an attack was provided several months in advance. I know that, but how does this imply that Stalin took no measures to prepare for the possible invasion? In fact, the armaments production in the Soviet Union was on increase during the last pre-war year. Then the author of this article claims that "the precise date and time of the invasion were revealed by a reliable source in Berlin fully three days before the Germans attacked." Maybe so, although I have no idea where the author derived that "fact" from. The conventional historian agree that multiple warning from multiple spies were forwarded to Moscow throughout May and June 1941 and all claimed the invasion would take place on a different date. Therefore it could not have been possible on the part of Soviet leadership to know the exact date on which the attack would take place. Finally, even if the precise date of an attack was available, what difference would it make if it came three days before? Yes, troops were not in defensive positions and planes weren't camouflaged. That could explain the initial German victories, but not their successes all the way into December. Therefore, I insist that your opinion on this subject must be included in the article not as a fact but a supposition. Thanks. NapoleonIII 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)" (Deng 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
Please understand that you must cite sources. You personal opinions and theories are original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 21:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


There are many many sources it is you who gives dodgy sources and you alone who pushes pow. Please understand that I understand that you are nothing but a POW pusher who failed to push his POW before and now is back (Deng 21:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Unfortunately, you do not even cite your own sources corretly. Getty: "Turning to executions and custodial deaths in the entire Stalin period, we know that, between 1934 and 1953, 1,053,829 persons died in the camps of the GULAG. We have data to the effect that some 86,582 people perished in prisons between 1939 and 1951. (We do not yet know exactly how many died in labor colonies.) We also know that, between 1930 and 1952-1953, 786,098 “counter-revolutionaries” were executed (or, according to another source, more than 775,866 persons “on cases of the police” and for “political crimes”). Finally, we know that, from 1932 through 1940, 389,521 peasants died in places of “kulak” resettlement. Adding these figures together would produce a total of a little more than 2.3 million"[16]

Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies best estimate of the number of famine deaths in 1932-1933 is 5.5 to 6.5 millions.[17]

Adding these, your own sources, give a number of 8.5 million killed by Stalin. And this number ignores for example the ethnic minorities killed in deportations. his is ignoring the ethnic minorities killed during and after deportations, like half the Crimean Tartars. Or the several million Germans killed during the evacuation of East Prussia. Ultramarine 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Your questions were answered before by Zvesda he proved you wrong and now that he is gone you are trying to push your own POW and you know it (Deng 21:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC))


This is an internet page for all I know you made it http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/reviews/davies-wheatcroft2004.pdf
And the same can be said for the other page. You try to push your own POW with home made pages but Zvesda used real books from real archives(Deng 21:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
One is scholarly article, the other a review of the book on a university page. Perfectly reliable sources. Again, your own sources states 8.5 million killed by Stalin. This is ignoring the ethnic minorities killed during and after deportations, like half the Crimean Tartars. Or the several million Germans killed during the evacuation of East Prussia.Ultramarine 22:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


No no those are not mine. And second of all they are both home made. And this has been answered by Zvesda with "The fact is that data from Russia's archives have proved these flatulent estimations of 50 million dead to be utterly false. This must immediately be changed. If I were to ask you to break down these 50 million dead per category, you'd be unable to do so. The three carefully scrutinised parts of Stalin's rule was the famine of 1932-1933 that claimed a documented 2.5 million lives, the GULAG that during peace time had 380,000 deaths of which the vast majority were non-political prisones, and the Yezhovschina during which there were 680,000 executions. Now, tell me how these figures accumulate to 50 million or even to 20 million. I've listed sources above."
AND
The "Black Book" alleges that 6 million died from famine, which is an exaggeration as exposed by Wheatcroft and Davies in "Years of Hunger" [Source]. Additionally, the "Black Book" (correctly) stated that 680,000 were executed during the Purge. It also correctly states that 1 million died in the GULAG. The final result of 20 million dead does not remotely correspond to the sum of these categories.
AND
YOU ARE TAKING A POV. The thoughts of western historians connoted to be infallable are given more emphasis than others. When you use "valid historians", you are taking a POV. According to many conventional historians including J.Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, Gabor Rittersporn, Mark Tauger, and Viktor Zemskov, these so-called historians' material has been discredited. Yet, the views of these have been omitted from this article.
Famine Source : RGAE 1562/329/108 . This is reported by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies in 2004's "Years of Hunger"
Purge and GULAG source GARF 9401/1/4157, 201-205 for the Purge; GARF 9414/1/1155, 2-3 for GULAG. This was reported by J.Arch Getty in an article that appeared in "Slavic Review" in 1993.
For the famine, there were about 2.5 million deaths. For the purge, there were 680,000 executions. For the GULAG, there were 380,000 deaths during peace time of which at least 75% were common criminals. The death toll can be summed up as roughly 4 million. Therefore, these estimations of tens of millions are INFLATED. They do not correspond to documented material. That is a fact. If any of this is wrong, show facts that are preferrably derived from the archives that say why.
So by this we can clearly see that you so called sources were blown out of the water and you are now trying to push your POW yet again after haveing failed the first time (Deng 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Unfortunately, you do not even cite your own sources corretly. Getty: "Turning to executions and custodial deaths in the entire Stalin period, we know that, between 1934 and 1953, 1,053,829 persons died in the camps of the GULAG. We have data to the effect that some 86,582 people perished in prisons between 1939 and 1951. (We do not yet know exactly how many died in labor colonies.) We also know that, between 1930 and 1952-1953, 786,098 “counter-revolutionaries” were executed (or, according to another source, more than 775,866 persons “on cases of the police” and for “political crimes”). Finally, we know that, from 1932 through 1940, 389,521 peasants died in places of “kulak” resettlement. Adding these figures together would produce a total of a little more than 2.3 million"[18]

Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies best estimate of the number of famine deaths in 1932-1933 is 5.5 to 6.5 millions. Your figure of 2.5 is false, that is only the registered deaths. [19]

Adding these, your own sources, give a number of 8.5 million killed by Stalin. And this number ignores for example the ethnic minorities killed in deportations, like half the Crimean Tartars. Or the several million Germans killed during the evacuation of East Prussia. Ultramarine 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


The only thing that is happeing again is that you arte trying to push your own POW. Zvesda said this
For the famine, there were about 2.5 million deaths. For the purge, there were 680,000 executions. For the GULAG, there were 380,000 deaths during peace time of which at least 75% were common criminals. The death toll can be summed up as roughly 4 million. Therefore, these estimations of tens of millions are INFLATED. They do not correspond to documented material. That is a fact. If any of this is wrong, show facts that are preferrably derived from the archives that say why.
But ofcurse you ignore this becuase you are trying to push your own POW yet again (Deng 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
"Zvesda" is not a reliable source, he is not a journal article or scholarly book. Read what his sources states. He reported them falsely. Ultramarine 22:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Read up this and this (In Russian, sorry). It is very helpful for people whose brains are full of propaganda about millions of dead. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Uninteresting unless you provide a translation. And then only if in a scholarly journal or from a scholarly book. Ultramarine 22:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


You use internet references. And you remove sourced parts in the text because it dosent fit your POW. Your book source were all proven wrong by Zvesda and it was all spelled out why they were wrong. And now you are back trying to push your POW yet again. And more importantly even if we use your own internet sources we get 8.5 million as you say and not 50 million which you are trying to push so hard (Deng)
I certainly do not advocate that 50 million is the correct figure. It is not the role of Wikipedia to decide which researcher presents the truth. We should only report all views. And there are many regarding Stalin's victims. Again, "Zvesda" is not a reliable source. Read his sources, he quoted false figures. Ultramarine 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Some more info here: http://www.uwm.edu/Course/448-343/index4.html (with references to books and all) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? The article cites Getty. As noted in his article, he estimates 2.3 million killed. This is excluding for example the famine (6 million according to source above) and deportations. Read Getty's article yourself.[20] Ultramarine 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


But you ARE trying to push the 50 million which can be seen in your edits to the stalin page on the 13th of may 2006 and at the same time you remove sourced material that say diffrently and then add misinformation in the form of this "It was hindered by Stalin's purge of experienced military officers and his denial of the intelligence warning of a German attack" And let us not forget that the page was totally fine and balanced before you started your POW pushing campaing (Deng 22:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
Huh? I certainly have never stated that 50 million is the correct figure nor do I believe it. Regarding Stalin's denial of the intelligence warning of a German attack, this is referenced.[21]


Yes you did push the 50 million and you pushed it hard NAD LET US NEVER FORGET THE PAGE WAS JUST FINE UNTILL YOU STARTED YOUR CAMPAGIN.
And again with the internet links. You totally ignore the fact that the red army grew from 1.8 million in 1939 to 5.4 in 1941 and that the officer corps did NOT grow in the same rate. And you even got an answer on your talk page why above this reason you misunderstand what your internet link says. (Deng 23:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
An article which contains factual inaccuracies and only views from one side not fine. That Stalin's purges weakened the Red Army is commonly accepted, see example this from the BBC.[22] Again, stop throwing out numbers like the above regarding the Red Army, follow Wikipedia policy, cite sources for your claims. My earlier source are correct, read them yourself, instead quoting what "Zvesda" thinks.Ultramarine 23:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


No it is not commonly excepted only by POW pushers like you. If you take the 33 thousand officers that were perged all except 8 thousand were back when the war broke out. If you read Russia's War by Richard Overy you will see the numbers. And this in no way changes the fact that you are an extreme Pow pusher that failed before and are back now. And that the page was just fine untill you came and statred your POW pushing campaign (Deng 23:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
Another source, quoting Conquest: "The purging of the army, meanwhile, saw about 35,000 military officers shot or imprisoned. The destruction of the officer corps, and in particular the execution of the brilliant chief-of-staff Marshal Tukhachevsky, is considered one of the major reasons for the spectacular Nazi successes in the early months of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.)"[23]

Speaking of "commonly accepted fact" that Stalin’s purges weakened the army so much, only about 3% of all army officer corps were executed and although slightly more were arrested, most were released before the war like SuperDeng says. You can read this in most books about Stalin that base their arguments on statistical evidence. Take Overy's "Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia" as an example. Now, calling Tukhachevsky brilliant so boldly, simply doesn't make sense. He miserably failed the Polish campaign - the only significant campaign he took part in. The theories of his engineer cronies, who attempted to design military inventions like machines that using magnets would deviate the course of enemy shells, proved to be nothing but childish fantasies. The only things at which Tukhachevky was actually brilliant were the violent supressions of peasant rebellions and planning coup to overthrow his own government. Well, maybe not that much at overthrowing. In short, Ultramarine, it does look like you are pushing your own point of view here. And you know, the fact that someone writes something in some dubious article like the one you sited, doesn't necessarily make this information a universally accepted fact. (NapoleonIII 00:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

More original reserach not allowed in Wikipedia. Again, cite sources for claims, like I do. Ultramarine 00:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again, many sources you site, like the one by Ferguson, are simply points of view. You can't insist that your opinion is correct just because it is supported by someone who holds the same view. Use actual statistical evidence.

(NapoleonIII 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

Huh? You seem to argue that I must use primary sources. False, wikipedia allows secondary sources.Ultramarine 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't say you must always use primary sources. I simply say that you accept other people's opinions as universally accepted facts when they correspond to your own opinion. I don't think that's the greatest approach. There is nothing wrong with including information from such sources, just don't attempt to make it look as if the opinions they argue are the only correct ones. (NapoleonIII 01:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC))
Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. I certainly do not state only some sources and views should be included, all significant should, as per Wikpedia policy. Ultramarine 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


This is the bigest problem with POW pushers like you even when qouteing your own sources you fail to see the details now let us see what you say :"The purging of the army, meanwhile, saw about 35,000 military officers shot or imprisoned." You do not see the word imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned So there is no way in hell that you can uderstand that when the war broke out that all except 8 thousand were back and you still do not see the big picture which was that the army grew from 1.8 million to 5.4 million between 1939 and 1941 but the officer corp did not grow in the same rate this is what you and your POW pushing mind do not see and can not see. (Deng 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies best estimate of the number of famine deaths in 1932-1933 is 5.5 to 6.5 millions

This incorrectly represents "Years of Hunger" by Wheatcroft and Davies. Pg. 415 explcitly states: Kazakhstan famine: approximate - 1.3-1.5 million Excess deaths in OGPU system: .3 million Registered excess deaths, 1932-1933: 2.9 million

Since there was not a registration system for Kazakhstan, we can not know for sure the number of excess deaths in the region. Davies and Wheatcroft however have inflated the total because according to their half-baked estimate 25% of Kazakhstan's population died while the archives show that 5% of Ukraine's population died. The 1.5 million estimate of Kazakhstan can therefore be discarded and not be part of the death toll. The Russian archives explcitly state that there were 1.5 million excess deaths in Ukraine, 300,000 in the North Caucusus, and 400,000 in the Volga. With these factual documents available to us, any further estimates including those provided by Wheatcroft and Davies are completely worthless. The 1932-1933 famine therefore resulted in no higher than 2.2 million deaths. Add the 1 million deaths in the GULAG as reported by J.Arch Getty and the 800,000 executions in the course of 1930-1953, the death toll under Stalin according to archival documents amounts to about 4.5 million. I am going to add this facts to accompany the absurd "estimated" death tolls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.111.74.89 (talk • contribs) .

Since Davies and Whatcroft is a notable, verifiable reference, shouldn't its numbers be included as they are. Isn't the point of NPOV to present references and differing conclusions and then let the reader come to their own conclusion? It seems like taking some numbers from a reference and discounting others as "half-baked" or "worthless" sounds like original research will result in a definite POV to the article. --C33 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy

Can someone enlighten me as to exactly what piece of text in the article you guys are arguing about? I mean, presumably you are arguing over some particular piece of text, aren't you? Gatoclass 13:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1

The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million and in 1937 another census found a population of between 162 and 163 million. This was 6 million[dubious – discuss] less than the projected population value and was suppressed as a "wrecker's census" with the census takers severely punished. A census was taken again in 1939, but its published figure of 170 million has been generally attributed directly to the decision of Stalin.[2] Note that the figure of 6 million does not have to imply 6 million[dubious – discuss] additional deaths, since as many as 3 million may be births that never took place due to reduced fertility and choice. Note also that these figures ignore the death toll from the early and late years of Stalin's regime.

Contradicted by its own reference, Revisionists vs. Anti Soviets, which clearly states 14 million deaths, yet inexplicably reverted to 6 million! Ultramarine 13:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, obviously the 6 million figure is contradicted by its own reference. Howver, looking at the Wheatcroft/Davies spreadsheet someone provided above from Years of Hunger, that spreadsheet says the population in 1926 was only 139 million, not 147 million, and that it had grown to 153 million by '37 (not 163 million). That spreadsheet also gives a total figure for excess deaths in '32-'33 as 2.52 million.

But then your reference in 2) below quotes the same source as estimating total deaths from the famine as 6 million out of a total population of about 140 million at the time, which appears to be the more definitive answer. So I guess they must have had some additional calculations to come up with the larger figure, which are not shown in the spreadsheet.

As for the quoted reference which says that The proof came with the 1937 census, which came up with a population (163-164 million) 14 million less than what the government had projected (a 3 million [2%] per year increase from the 1926 figure of 147 million - I note there is no actual source given for these numbers. And since they directly contradict the population estimates given in the Wheatcroft/Davies study, and are also it seems using a much cruder method of counting, I think they should probably be discounted, don't you?

So I think 6 million is probably the most reliable figure. Gatoclass 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The 14 million refers to the total unexpected deficit in population during some years of Stalin's regime. That can have many causes, like the famine. The figure of 6 million refers only to the famine, not for example the Gulags and deportations. Thus, not comparable figures.Ultramarine 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I haven't actually seen anything to indicate that these are the correct census figures. All I have is a webpage with these figures quoted. What is the actual source? Do you have something a bit more definitive?

Secondly, Wheatcroft/Davies have come up with very different population figures in their thorough study. So not only is the 14 million figure itself only a crude estimate, but the numbers on which this 14 million is based are themselves contradicted by experts in the field. So however the paragraph in question is phrased, I don't think it should be suggesting that 14 million is the correct number, which is what the paragraph is doing now. I think the six million figure should probably be emphasized, with perhaps the 14 million referred to as an outside estimate. Gatoclass 15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wheatcroft/Davies figure refers only to the famine during a few years of Stalin's regime in a few regions of the Soviet Union. It is just a small fraction of Stalin's victims. Regarding the census, I do not consider it a very important source, but I note the factual inaccuracy in the current version of this article.
Here is another study, Europe-Asia Studies, September 1996, Vol 48, No 6, p 959-987: Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s. Steven Rosefielde. It gives around 10 million victims for some years during the 30s only.
Here are many other sources: [24]. Ultramarine 15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the paragraph in question was meant to be about the famine.

But if we are talking about the total deaths under Stalin, hasn't that already been covered in the section? I mean, at the end it says the numbers vary hugely, from everything between one million and 50 million. So, I'm still not exactly sure what everyone is getting so excited about here. Aren't both sides already represented in this section? Gatoclass 16:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The figures from the census be corrected, or, preferably, the whole paragraph should be deleted as only one old source among many others not mentioned in detail. Also, the absolutely lowest figure I can find is 3.5 million deaths for the 1926-39 period, from the compilation above. It would be more accurate to say that the numbers vary from under 10 to over 50 million deaths.Ultramarine 16:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with that. In fact I just started a new heading suggesting much the same thing. Gatoclass 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

2

It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if war casualities, Nazi policy in the occupied territory, famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and repressions are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred from unnnatural causes under Stalin is in the millions, while according to Soviet archives, the number of sentenced to death, shot and executed for any crimes during Stalin's rule does not exceed 700 thousand.(disputed — see talk page)

First, for example the figures of several tens of millions killed during Stalin's regime mentioned here, [25], do not include "Nazi policy in the occupied territory" or "war casualities". Second, misleading descirption. The argued source for <700,000 executed, one among many, states "Turning to executions and custodial deaths in the entire Stalin period, we know that, between 1934 and 1953, 1,053,829 persons died in the camps of the GULAG. We have data to the effect that some 86,582 people perished in prisons between 1939 and 1951. (We do not yet know exactly how many died in labor colonies.) We also know that, between 1930 and 1952-1953, 786,098 “counter-revolutionaries” were executed (or, according to another source, more than 775,866 persons “on cases of the police” and for “political crimes”). Finally, we know that, from 1932 through 1940, 389,521 peasants died in places of “kulak” resettlement. Adding these figures together would produce a total of a little more than 2.3 million"[26] This exludues for example the famine, 6 million deaths according the particular source insisted on, [27]. Nor do these figures include those killed by deportations, like Crimean Tartars. Or German civilians killed for example during the Evacuation of East Prussia.Ultramarine 13:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't complain because you deleted with some poor explanation my rewrite of this section where I tried to state it in a more neutral way, even specially stressing the fact that execution is but a part of "unnatural" death commonly attributed to effects of Stalin's rule. As for famines etc so what? the number of sentenced to death, shot and executed for any crimes - what part of this don't you understand? --Poison sf 15:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I have quite a problem with this paragraph anyhow. Why should "war casualties", and "Nazi policy in the occupied territory" be lumped together with Stalin's victims? Also, I'm not sure why the figure of 700,000 political victims is being quoted here. I mean, what exactly is the point of this paragraph supposed to be? It's not at all clear. Gatoclass 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it has relevance. As correctly stated, a lot of speculations about death toll is based on demographics (a pretty shoddy base in any way IMO, considering many changes in lifestyle [e.g. urbanization], views on sex & birth etc) that happened at that time, that could invalidate population growth predictions. Demographics can tell us roughly the difference with projected population. Even if we forget about problems with such projections, demographics say nothing about reasons of death. Even during WW2, many people attribute a high number of deaths of USSR citizens to USSR government for various reasons. The purpose of the parapraph is clearly to lead in to the next paragraph. First one basically says "number is in the millions, but it's not just clear murders as in execution, a lot of it is more controversial" and the second paragraph continues "How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed [..]". So the purpose is that it's part of the narrative of that paragraph. --Poison sf 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please understand you must cite sources for your claims, otherwise they are not allowed in Wikipedia. As the whole paragraph is misleading and has no sources for its claims, it should be removed according to Wikipedia:Cite sources.Ultramarine 15:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay so what your saying Poison is you want the political victims to be included in this paragraph to emphasize that not all these fatalities can be attributed to Stalin, is that right? I can see your point, my problem is with the paragraph as a whole as it has no obvious point. Is it supposed to be emphasizing the shortcomings of Stalin's regime? If so, it doesn't do that very well. What has Stalin to do with "war casualties" and "Nazi policies"? They were not his fault, so why bother mentioning them? The whole paragraph needs to be either rewritten, or tossed out. Gatoclass 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write the first paragraph, but what I'm saying is that, as I see it, it makes perfect sense there as introduction to the text after it (now, ironically, also removed by Ultramarine!) and must be considered as a whole. He wants for some reason remove all details and complexity around the issue - as pretty obvious now he has not even ended with the first paragraph. I personally do not feel the text is ideal, that's how I wanted to ewrite it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josef_Stalin&diff=53028302&oldid=53021711 but Ultramarine obviously didn't like it either and removed with an explanation "Do not insert old errors, do not removed sources, again these figures do not include combat dead and those killed by Nazi", which is IMO pure nonsense.
As for what Stalin has to do with "war casualties" - well, it's actually often alleged that he's personally reposnsible for a large number of war causalities (because of bad orders) and even executions of people retreating or deserting etc. Besides, when basing estimates on demographics, there's often no way to distinguish between death from various causes - e.g. if you're shot for anti-revolutionary activity or you're shot by enemy in combat, in demographic statistics for this time it's going to reflect the same way.
So, IMO - normal, neutral lead in and in the text following this first paragraph everything is covered in detail.--Poison sf 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

3

The introduction attributes the victory in WWII to Stalin, but ignores his massive denial of the intelligence warning of the German attack.[28] Or his killing of the most experienced military officers, often cited as another factor for the enormous initial military defeats[29][30]Ultramarine 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any attribution of victory in WWII to Stalin in the introduction. All it says is A hard-won victory in World War II (the Great Patriotic War, 1941–45) was made possible in part through the capacity for production that was the outcome of industrialization. I read that as meaning victory over the Germans on the Russian Front, not victory in WWII. If you think the paragraph is ambiguous, maybe it needs to be rephrased. Gatoclass 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of repressed

Okay, the most contentious section seems to be the one entitled (from memory) "Number of repressed" (which itself is kind of an odd title).

It seems to me the whole thing probably should be rewritten at this point, since most of it is obviously problematic.

I think maybe the best way to go about it is to break down the section under various smaller headings, listing each of the main causes of death and the range of estimates for each cause. That should then be followed up by a paragraph covering the other estimates for total victims (since some estimates appear to be overall totals rather than a breakdown).

That way we cover all bases, and everyone is happy.

So, what could the subheadings be? There is the 32-33 famine, obviously. There are the political victims. Maybe the Great Purge. What else? Gatoclass 16:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Victims would include those directly executed, like during the Great Terror, dissenters sent to the Gulags were most were expected to die, the Holodomor, genocides of certain ethinic minorities due to deportations and hardhiship, and deaths of German and allied POWs and civilians. Unfortunately, the exact breakdown of these figures are usually not available online.Ultramarine 16:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not exactly straightforward. Maybe some of them could be amalgamated. Really it's just a matter of digging up the various sources and putting it all together in some sort of comprehensible package. I'm just not sure I can find the time to do this right now. Gatoclass 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is again obvious errors like the 6 million figure contradicted by its own reference reverted to? Please explain. See Neutrality and factual accuracy above. Ultramarine 20:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on that section:

  • Structure / layout of the section (number of paragraphs and what they're about) - I like it.
  • 1st paragraph - I proposed a different version previously (see diff link above), but I'm more or less ok with the current one too, though a footnote must be added stating the source.
  • 2nd paragraph - I don't get this stuff with 14 and 6 millions myself. I agree the paragraph needs improvements. Indeed, the webpage used as a source claims 14 millions, but, most importantly, I don't even understand why is some webpage like that used as a reference. It looks like a pretty poor job: it doesn't list references, author clearly has an observable POV (starts with a below the belt comparison with holocaust revisionism, such rhetorical devices IMO taint a text). Is that website suitable as a reference at all? IMO it would be nice to use some other source as reference in the article for whatever number is used, be it 14 or 6 millions. And what's with these strange calculations - "3 millions could account for births that didn't take place" etc. Who says that? Based on what? Why are they sure 3 millions births didn't take place, why not 3.5 or 4 or 2? How can they reliably count non-births? Was 3 millions per year made by communists in 1929 a sensible estimate? Can anybody clarify such issues? --Poison sf 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute pitch

He is listed as having absolute pitch. Is there any source for this?--Blackfield 13:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is stated in at least one of his biographies. [31]. - Rainwarrior 21:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalin

(Moved from SuperDeng's talk page.)

Hello. Why are you reverting obvious factual errors? Ultramarine 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You remove sourced numbers becuase you dont like what they say (Deng 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
But for example the figure of 6 million from the census is contradicted by its own source. When discussed on the talk page, outside editor agreed that the paragraph should be removed.Ultramarine 20:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No it is not the only thing contradicting is you and you removed the demographics of the Soviet Union because they do not fit with your POW pushing (Deng 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
But its own source states 14 million? [32] Ultramarine 20:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to discuss anything do it on the Stalin talk page and stop useing internet refrences to push your POW. Anyone can make an internet page like that (Deng 20:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
But that is you own source for the census! Ultramarine 20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop posting on my page and stop saying mine, an internet page can be made by anyone and you can write what ever you want on it (Deng 20:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
But this is your own source for the text you reverted to! Ultramarine 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop posting on my page and stop saying mine. (Deng 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

But again, the text you reverted to had this as a source. Are saying that this information is incorrect? Then the whole paragraph should be removed.Ultramarine 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Everything has been explained by many others. You only push your own POW like you are trying to push now for example one only needs to scroll up and one will see the discussion about the military and now again you are trying to push your misinformation (Deng 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

SuperDeng, please explain why you have deleted sourced material: [33] Ultramarine 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


You confuse me with yourself I have not deleted source info it is you who deletes sourced info I have explain about the military let me ctrl c ctrl v it yet again

This is the bigest problem with POW pushers like you even when qouteing your own sources you fail to see the details now let us see what you say :"The purging of the army, meanwhile, saw about 35,000 military officers shot or imprisoned." You do not see the word imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned So there is no way in hell that you can uderstand that when the war broke out that all except 8 thousand were back and you still do not see the big picture which was that the army grew from 1.8 million to 5.4 million between 1939 and 1941 but the officer corp did not grow in the same rate this is what you and your POW pushing mind do not see and can not see. (Deng 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Please respect Wikipedia:Civility and act in good fatih. Please do not repeat words many times, please try to find factual arguments instead. Please give sources for you claims. Again, please explain why you have deleted sourced material: [34] and inserted material contradicted by its own references.Ultramarine 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I would not need to repeat it if you would have gotten it the first couple of times but since you fail to understand it the first couple of times then repetition is the only way. You use internet sources and This question was answered to you atleast 3 times was it not? So now how big of a chans is it that you will understand it the 4th time. It was pointed out on your own talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUltramarine&diff=53018963&oldid=52096954 then I pointed it out to you here WITH A SOURCE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJosef_Stalin&diff=53070377&oldid=53068625 AND IT WAS POINTED OUT HERE AS WELL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJosef_Stalin&diff=53053961&oldid=53052670 So it is clear that you are POW pushing you remove sourced material that do not fit your POW and you ignore it as well. And then you use home made internet references to back your own POW pushing agenda. (Deng 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

SuperDeng, this issue regarding these supposed census figures was already extensively discussed on this Talk page under the heading "Neutrality and Factual Accuracy" subheading "1" above. We all agreed that the piece of text quoted not only contradicts itself, but is also contradicted by other sources, unreferenced, and by and large redundant to the overall picture. And if you think this block of text about census figures is helping to put Stalin in a better light, I must respectfully disagree. It is only serving to obfuscate.

I suggest you read the talk section I quoted above so you understand the reasons for deleting that paragraph. In the meantime I've restored my compromise edit which we had all agreed upon at that point. Regards, Gatoclass 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


I sugesst you read the talk page. You removed the sourced numbers of the official records that puts the number of dead at 4 million and the demographic link because it does not fit with the POW you are trying to push. The text has been altered to an incorrect and misleading version. You will see that most people support the correct version and not this POW pushing version. If you read the archives and read the discussion page you will see that. And the page was totally fine untill Ultramarine came and altered so much. And he is the person who has added information that contradict itself. He also has removed the sources of facts and then says there are no sources and then removes the paragraph all togheter. Also and most importantly the version which is in correct and misleading says that some version put it at 20 million but others put it lower. This is ofcurse correct but it would be equally correct to say the official numbers put it at 4 million and some put it higher. You remove the number 4 million because it does not fit with your agenda. And this "Estimates of excess deaths under Stalin range from less than ten million to fifty million or more. Most agree that the famine of 1932-33 was the worst period, with estimates of the toll in this case ranging from 6 million to 20 million." Is a plain and absolut lie the lowest number is around 2.5 million and not 6.(Deng 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

You remove the number 4 million because it does not fit with your agenda. Not at all. And you're quite mistaken if you think "my agenda" is to exaggerate Stalin's crimes. I'm basically just trying to help find a consensus.

I'm not aware of removing a number of 4 million at all, but if I did, it was purely by accident. As far as I'm aware, the lowest estimate for the famine alone which has been put forward by historians is 6 million. Add a couple million more for purges and deportations etc and you come up with a number somewhat short of ten million.

I'll quote you from the summary of different sources given at White's webpage (lower estimates only):

And from the Lower Numbers school:

Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.

Cited in Nove:

Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.

Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.

Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.

Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.

Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.

Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.

MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.

- So it appears that even most of the lower numbers school give an estimate of around 8 million for the '30's alone. To that you can add a few more for the rest of his rule. So I didn't think "under ten million" is an unreasonable estimate.

"Most agree that the famine of 1932-33 was the worst period, with estimates of the toll in this case ranging from 6 million to 20 million." Is a plain and absolut lie the lowest number is around 2.5 million and not 6.(Deng 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

I took a careful look at the spreadsheet from Years of Hunger you quoted and the number given there for the famine is indeed around 2.5 million. But then Ultramarine provided an additional quote from the same source which put the total at "between 5.5 and 6.5 million". So naturally I assume there are additional estimates in that book over and above the spreadsheet data that caused them to arrive at the higer figure. Gatoclass 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The current edit war should not be called "vandalism". I will let others decide which editor is more guilty of POV pushing, but neither is a vandal. Wikipedia uses the word "vandalism" mainly to mean a silly edit like this one, not arguing over how many million died because of Stalin. Here is a quote from how the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy defines vandalism:

NPOV violations

The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism.

Bold Edits

Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.

Mistakes

Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.

Bullying or Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

Art LaPella 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

1937 census and difference with projected population

ok, let's calm down and get some good numbers supported by notable and/or reliable sources. Conquest says on the subject:

The motive for suppressing the census and the census-takers is reasonably clear. A figure of about 170 million had featured in official speeches and estimates for several years, a symbolic representation of Molotov's boast in January 1935 that 'the gigantic growth of population shows the living forces of Soviet construction'.5

Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (University of Alberta Press, 1986).

http://www.ditext.com/conquest/16.html

So, according to Conquest, the "Party Line" figure was "about 170 millions". This is more or less in aggreement with the note in the text disputed by Ultramarine that the census showed "6 millions less than what was projected". Very roughly 163+6 and 170 almost match, at least there's no drastic difference.

And Conquest, allthough I don't value him highly myself, is at least considered a prominent scholar. The 14 millions figure on the other hand is taken from some obscure site. Actually 14 is not the limit. On another obscure site I read that the projected figure was 193 (!), which gives 30 millions difference.

But, admittedly, that is not all. According to one Russian source I've read today (though it's to obscure and not trustworthy enough to be a good reference), these super-high projections that give 14 millions or more deficit are based on an uncautious speech by Stalin where he claimed that the Soviet population was growing by 3 millions a year "adding a Findland's population each year". This was based on very optimistic assumptions plus trademark Soviet self-congratulatory hurray-propaganda. In particular, it seems that these estimates were based on much lower adolescent mortality (from diseases) rates than what have actually been accompllshed by Soviet medicine at that moment.

One optimistic assumption that population growth predictions probably took is that the "weird" trend - birth rate surge that took place in exactly around 1926 will continue in 1930s. But this didn't happen, it almost immediately dropped from 50 down to 30 births (tremendous fall) and I don't think that any Soviet policies account 100% for that, because such rates are not normal for modern ubranized population, it's "third world population expolosion rates". Most serious sources note that education and employement of women and urbanization account for this demographic turnaround and that late 1920s birth rate was the last gasp of "old rural society birth rates" and that the change mirrors similar changes in other urbanizing countries. (See interesting graph in "Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution" by Robert C. Allen on google books (type "social breakdown resulted in millions of civilian deaths first from typhus" in the search term field and it will give the necessary page)

So there's no doubt that the falling fertility because of hard life and urbanization account for a lot from "population deficit". It would be nice to find a good source for the "3 millions accounted for by birth that didn't take place" claim. --Poison sf 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Conquest in the link support a figure of around 14 million from the 1937 census. "The most specific gives a population for the USSR of 163,772,000, others, a round 164 million. The total, in the lower projections made over previous years by Soviet statisticians, and on the estimates of modern demographers, should have been about 177,300,000." And his final numbers for "Peasant dead: 1930-37" and "Arrested in this period dying in camps later" is 14.5 million.Ultramarine 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I've just noticed that passage

The total, in the lower projections made over previous years by Soviet statisticians, and on the estimates of modern demographers, should have been about 177,300,000. Another, rougher approach is to take the estimated population of 1 January 1930 (157,600,000)8 and add to it Stalin's statement in 1935 that 'the annual increase in population is about three million'.9 This too gives a figure of 178,600,000, very near our other projection. The Second Five Year Plan had also provided for a population of 180.7 million for the beginning of 1938,10 which also implies between 177 and 178 in 1937.

BTW from this comparison it's obvious that indeed all these high range predictions were based on assumption that high growth rate (3 millions per year or about 2%) will hold (because the numbers are roughly equal). So, if I read it correctly, 2 types of numbers were circulating - around 170 and around 178.
As for his estimate of arrested and dead - I'm not very interested in Conquest opinion on that right now, at least certainly not in discussing it here. Let's keep on topic here please, 1937 census and related projections only (and their relative differences with reality). Ideally, more quality references must be gathered to first-hand statistical data, such as those estimates and their background (3 millions non-births, 170 millions and 178 millions estimates). --Poison sf 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Conquest is a historian who have research the subject and written an academic book. His view is valid in Wikipedia. Our own views are are not. Stating "BTW from this comparison it's obvious that indeed all these high range predictions were based on assumption that high growth" is not acceptable. Thus, please provide sources for all statements. Conqeust states "The total, in the lower projections made over previous years by Soviet statisticians, and on the estimates of modern demographers, should have been about 177,300,000."Ultramarine 20:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Conquest doesn't say who're "modern demographers", so it's pretty useless claim as is. 177-178 millions - 147 millions of 1926 census divide by 11 years is almost 3 millions per year. Or, in Conquest's own words Another, rougher approach is to take the estimated population of 1 January 1930 (157,600,000)8 and add to it Stalin's statement in 1935 that 'the annual increase in population is about three million'.9 This too gives a figure of 178,600,000, very near our other projection..
What's "high" and what's not high birth rate can be seen on the graph in "Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution". It gives birth rates and death rates per thousand. At the very pike of fertility (somewhere in the middle of 1920s), it's 50 births and about 30 deaths, giving 20 surplus population per 1000 = 2%. This is, coincedently the growth rate which gives 3 millions per year. As it can be seen on the graph, fertility necessary for 2% surplus was not nearly sustained.--Poison sf 21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The only mention of 170 million is your own quote that this was the official party line. I do not see it in any of the demographic projections. There is simply no support of what is stated now in the article, that the census showed "6 millions less than what was projected". Both the article source for this statement and Conquest states around 14 million. As such, the statement is factually incorrect.
"The only mention is my quote" - are you kidding me? Scroll up to statement by Conquest "A figure of about 170 million had featured in official speeches and estimates for several years" from harvest of sorrow.--Poison sf 15:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, the census is only one source regarding the deaths and only cover a fraction of Stalin's rule. See this, [35], and this, [36], for many other sources. Ultramarine 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Show books, author and year of publishment Ultramarine. The only thing that I have ever seen contradiciting it self is you. Show books and references that anything contradicts itself. The only thing that I have seen contradicting itself is you. I want to see cold hard facts and not just your usuall pulling facts out of thin air removeing sources then saying there are no sources and then linking to some home made internet page. Show facts that anything is contradiciting itslef and explain why you remove this paragrpah the only reason which i can see removeing such a paragraph is to push your own POW (Deng 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC))
Blocked for disruption, [37], as reported here, [38][39].Ultramarine 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
1939 census can be found here:[40] (Bottom page) --Kuban Cossack 22:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"The census was then suppressed. The Head of the Census Board, O.A. Kvitkin, was arrested on 25 March.2 It turned out that 'the glorious Soviet intelligence headed by the Stalinist Peoples' Commissar N.I. Yezhov' had 'crushed the serpent's nest of traitors in the apparatus of Soviet statistics'.3 The traitors had 'set themselves the task of distorting the actual numbers of the population', or (as Pravda put it later) 'had exerted themselves to diminish the numbers of the population of the USSR',4 a rather unfair taunt, since it was, of course, not they who had done the diminishing.
The motive for suppressing the census and the census-takers is reasonably clear. A figure of about 170 million had featured in official speeches and estimates for several years, a symbolic representation of Molotov's boast in January 1935 that 'the gigantic growth of population shows the living forces of Soviet construction'.5
Another census was taken in January 1939, the only one in the period whose results were published, but in the circumstances it has always failed to carry much conviction. All the same, it is worth noting that even if the official 1939 figures are accepted, they show a huge population deficit, if not as large as the reality."[41]Ultramarine 23:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in haggling over census numbers. We are not supposed to include original research in articles. The idea is rather to report the estimates that scholars in the field have reported. So all we really need to do is collect the data from as many relevant sources we can find and summarize them in an appropriate way. I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Gatoclass 04:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


That is the Problem Ultramarine removes real sources paragraphs and adds pur pushing. For example he removed this line here which has been sources by not one real source but with 2.

  • The official records in Moscow which were opened after the breakup of the USSR in 1991, puts it at around 4 million.

Also compering the paragraph that he has removed with the paragraph he has added proves that it is pow pushing.

This is what keep geting removed. This paragraph has existed for a very long time before Ultramarine came and started the POW Camaping.

How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed because the main historical source for such estimations is demographic statistics, with uncertainty about what is an "unnatural cause" and how Stalin himself was responsible. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million and in 1937 another census found a population of between 162 and 163 million. This was 6 million less than the projected population value and was suppressed as a "wrecker's census" with the census takers severely punished. A census was taken again in 1939, but its published figure of 170 million has been generally attributed directly to the decision of Stalin.[3] Note that the figure of 6 million does not have to imply 6 million additional deaths, since as many as 3 million may be births that never took place due to reduced fertility and choice. Note also that these figures ignore the death toll from the early and late years of Stalin's regime.


And this is what he has added

In attempting to collate the total number of victims of the Soviet regime under Stalin's leadership, historians have employed a wide variety of different methodologies and come up with a correspondingly wide range of results ([42]) . Estimates of excess deaths under Stalin range from less than ten million to fifty million or more. Most agree that the famine of 1932-33 was the worst period, with estimates of the toll in this case ranging from 6 million to 20 million. There is still disagreement however over whether the famine was deliberately engineered by the Soviet leadership, or simply a consequence of failed planning.

One can see that they are totally diffrent.

For example the origianl paragraph has this line which is supported and sourced by logic

  • Note that the figure of 6 million does not have to imply 6 million additional deaths, since as many as 3 million may be births that never took place due to reduced fertility and choice.


And he added this unsourced and pure POW pushing line.

  • There is still disagreement however over whether the famine was deliberately engineered by the Soviet leadership, or simply a consequence of failed planning.


Not only did Ultrmarine remove real info and replace it with absolut POW pushing he also added misinformation in the form of this line

"There is still disagreement however over whether the famine was deliberately engineered by the Soviet leadership, or simply a consequence of failed planning."

And the refusal to discuss this the many many times it has been mentioned before just adds to the case that it is POW pushing (Deng 09:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

SuperDeng, you are mistaken to think that the version you quoted was written by Ultramarine. Actually, it was written by me, and I wrote it that way as a method of covering all the estimates by known sources. "less than ten million to fifty million or more" is a pretty accurate description in my view. Wheatcroft/Davies give a figure of 6 million for the famine alone. Above fifty million is Rummel's estimate, and even though I think the guy's a shonk, he is an historian so unfortunately his estimates have to be included.
As for the lower figure, it's possible I was mistaken and that there are estimates considerably lower than ten million. If you have some sources which demonstrate this, by all means provide the source, I'm quite prepared to revise the lower if necessary. In fact I may even do it myself.
A number of your other criticism I already answered in the previous talk section above, but you appear to have missed it. Gatoclass 11:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Give it up Deng. We finally had a good version when you were blocked for disruption of this article. Why do you continue to insist that Wikipedia should be factually incorrect and endlessly revert to your version that is contradicted by its own references, like the 6 million figure. Ultramarine 17:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Answer the question and do not forget for one second that the article was fine before you came. The only thing that contradictis itself is you who refuses to answer any questions and refers to a home made internet page with no burden of proof what so ever in any form what so ever. Answer the questions which have been asked in such detail above. You have been blocked many times for this type of behaviour. You refuse to answer the questions at hand and refuse to discuss the points pointed out. The version given has been sourced by real books and not some home made internet page that can be made by anyone so answer the questions. And the fact remains you keep on removeing sourced info for example this paragraph here keep gette removed by you even though it has been sourced by a real professor who has written a real book written by Richard Overy

  • It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if war casualities, Nazi policy in the occupied territory, famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and repressions are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred from unnnatural causes under Stalin is in the millions, while according to Soviet archives, the number sentenced to death, shot and executed for any crimes during Stalin's rule does not exceed 700 thousand. It has been sourced by Overy, Richard. Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Penguin Books Ltd., 2005. So why do you keep on removeing that why?(Deng 20:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC))
Well, concerned projected population, it appears to me that it all depends on projected by whom. Estimate which gives 14 millions "deficit" is one case. Antonov-Ovseenko projects it so that it gives 30 millions "deficit" [43]. There's also minimal evidence that a number featured in official propaganda back then which can give 6 millions "deficit" (i.e. around 170 millions total) - as quoted above from Conquest. Perhaps more could on this 170 millions number be gathered by googling. A lot of these projections are pretty obviously false, as they assume about 2% or even more growth rate, it's only true for the peak of fertility in mid 1920s (average 50 births, 30 deaths per 1000). The transition (decline of birth rates) that happened exactly in late 1920s and early 1930s is ignored.--Poison sf 22:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are lists of many different estimates: [44] and [45]. I do not see Overy's book mentioned in either of them. It seems to be a more general book about how dictatorships function, not a book about scholarly research regarding exactly how many were killed. Please give exact page numbers so I can control the claim.Ultramarine 07:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Still you refuse to discuss anything. And I see you contiuned adding of misinformation about the military which has been explained in such detail above. That the army grew from 1.8 million in 1939 to 5.4 million in 1941 but the officer corps did not grow in the same rate this has been sourced and explained in so many posts above. And your continued refusal to answer any of the questions.
  • Why was this has this line been removed in your version Note that the figure of 6 million does not have to imply 6 million additional deaths, since as many as 3 million may be births that never took place due to reduced fertility and choice. Why is that it has been removed why? Is it not sourced by logic and commen sense Why do you remove it why? The number of 6 million comes from the census which gave 163ish and what the excepcted the pop to be which is 170ish hence the 6ish or even 7ish million difference(Deng 12:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Then we have the adding of pure unsourced pow pushing such as this "There is still disagreement however over whether the famine was deliberately engineered by the Soviet leadership, or simply a consequence of failed planning." Why do you add such unsourced pow pushing why why do you add it why?(Deng 12:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC))
  • And then we have you removal of this paragraph which has been sourced by not 1 but 2 real sources and not some home made internet page. The official records in Moscow which were opened after the breakup of the USSR in 1991, puts it at around 4 million. Why was that paragrpah removed?(Deng 12:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC))
  • And the removal of this line why was this line removed why? How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed because the main historical source for such estimations is demographic statistics, with uncertainty about what is an "unnatural cause" and how Stalin himself was responsible. why was that line removed?(Deng 12:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC))
  • And you keep saying that the it contradicts itself, and then you use a HOME MADE internet page that can be made by anyone that bases its information on something written in 1986 which is 20 years ago and it was BEFORE the fall of the Soviet Union BEFORE the archives were opened. And we have sourced numbers that have been sourced by real books written AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union which you keep on removeing. So why do you use a home made internet page that can be made by anyone and that bases itself on somethingwritten before the fall of the soviet union and was written 20 years ago. Why is that why? (Deng 12:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC))
  • And why do you refuse to discuss anything and answer the questions asked why is that why? (Deng 12:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

The 4 million figure

Maybe Deng is right that the lower number should be 4 million, not "under ten million".

From White's summary of sources:

Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.

If total excess deaths between 26 and 39 were "likely 3.5 million", then this period covers the worst of Stalin's rule and this source would probably not add too many more for the rest. Also, Deng says the official figure is around 4 million and he may be right about that, I'm not sure. How about if we say the figure ranges from "under five million to fifty million or more"? That might be a more accurate description of the various sources, and it might have the additional benefit of ending this rather fruitless dispute. Gatoclass 11:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I say nothing I just restores the original version which was here BEFORE Ultramarine came and started to change everything. And you should look at the the diffrent version which can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josef_Stalin&diff=53941071&oldid=53933175 and you will see how much Ultramarine removes and what he adds then you should scroll up and see all the questions I have asked.(Deng 12:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC))
The 1939-1953 period includes the continued killings in the Gulags, most of the deportations of ethnic minorities, and the kilings of German and allied POWs and civilians. Please give a source for any claim that Stalin killed less than 5 million when looking at the whole of his regime.Ultramarine 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have a source which says there were less than five million deaths under Stalin. However, as I already said, most sources agree that the period before 1939, which included the 32-33 famine and the great purge, was the worst in terms of death toll, and we have a source who gives an estimated 3.5 million excess deaths total for the period up until 1939. Presumably that same source would have a correspondingly low count for the rest of Stalin's reign, therefore I don't think "under five million" would be an unreasonable estimate.

Deng also says official records show no more than 4 million excess deaths in this period. I'm still waiting for him to clarify the source, but assuming he does have a credible source then that would confirm under five million as the low figure. Gatoclass 09:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my many questions above first and 2 sources have already been given with remark to the 4 million so please answer the questions above. And also answer why you keep on adding misinformation about the army when we have discussed it in such depth and detail. That the army grew that all except 8 thousand were back and that the total officer corps was around 139k so loseing 8k aint such a deep blow. Please answer the Questions above which have been asked so many times (Deng 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

The Problem

The problem is obvoius humans stand diffrently on the political scales and this will ofcurse flavour how they see and act in the world. So how do we solve it? Well we can either keep on yelling at each other and by doing so nullify each other which wont give or do shit or we can try to work togheter. Now how do we look beyond politcal thinking. Well it is quite simple, when ever comeing across a political hot potato that stalin and the death toll under him is then one should try just to give absolute truths and real facts. I will re write the death toll in some days and some other small parts hopefully tomorrow in this manner and hopefully it is something that most people or atleast those people who look beyond political ideology can accept. (Deng 01:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

I heard a rumor that Stalin had Jewish roots

Does the rumor have any factual basis or is just a bunch of nonsense. If it came to be true; however, it could have enormous remifications. What do you people think?

-I came across an interesting argument awhile ago: His real name is Joseph David Dhugashvili. This is an somewhat Jewish name when you -break it down. Joseph and David are obviously Jewish. Dhuga can be translated to "Jew". Shvili translates to "son of". One could -translate Stalin's true name to be "Joseph David Jewison". It probably merits further research before you come to any conclusions -though... -LaoTze

That's not an argument, that's blatant nonsense. According to which source can 'Dhuga' be translated as 'jew'???? He was a Georgian orthodox Christian by birth. Christians tend to give their children biblical names, which happen to be Jewish. According to this 'argument', Goebbels was Jewish (damn, some people actually believe that), and so was John F. Kennedy. John's a Jewish name, after all. And, what would be the 'implication'? That dem Djoos were behind it all after all again? Arg, I am getting a fit here. Dietwald 11:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-Seems to me like you just had a knee-jerk reaction, your blatent exageration of some argument that I hazily remember into a "Djoos" conspiracy is rather immature and offensive. I seem to recall that this fellow also claimed that most/all of his wives were Jewish as well. Again, I haven't bothered to confirm any of this. Take with a hefty grain of salt. -LaoTze
What makes me curious is that majority of the bolshevik revolution was masterminded by Jews. Starting with Marx, through Lenin (partly Jewish), Trotsky, and many others - I do not remember names. Also, Stalin's children married Jews. Hence my curiosity, why would anyone let non-jew Stalin into high echelon of power dominated by Jews. and since there are claims that he was anti-semitic, why would he allow his children to marry Jews? It was after WWII when Stalin turned anti-jewish for his own political reasons. Up to that point he was murdering all nationalities, religions, etc as it served him fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.191.190 (talk • contribs)
-Stalin originally supported Israel, when he lost potential influence over it(to the U.S.) he changed his tune. -Stalins right hand man (Kaganovich) was of Jewish origin. I think the claims of him being antisemitic need to be re-examined.

Famine thing

I have read in a historical book that farmers starved because of the collvising of farms which hurt the whole production thing and because they in revenge destroyed and hid food to get back.


In short yupp, but as anything there are a million details and simplification of such huge matters are always bad. (Deng 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Emphasis on the latter part of that first remark, indeed ("and because"). Too often I don't see "history accounts" take this into account - even pro-collectivization accounts, too. Darth Sidious 07:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Utramarine - re "under five million"

Ultramarine, in answer to your request above about sources for an "under five million" figure, I resubmit your own post from prior discussion on this page:

Unfortunately, you do not even cite your own sources corretly. Getty: "Turning to executions and custodial deaths in the entire Stalin period, we know that, between 1934 and 1953, 1,053,829 persons died in the camps of the GULAG. We have data to the effect that some 86,582 people perished in prisons between 1939 and 1951. (We do not yet know exactly how many died in labor colonies.) We also know that, between 1930 and 1952-1953, 786,098 “counter-revolutionaries” were executed (or, according to another source, more than 775,866 persons “on cases of the police” and for “political crimes”). Finally, we know that, from 1932 through 1940, 389,521 peasants died in places of “kulak” resettlement. Adding these figures together would produce a total of a little more than 2.3 million"[18]

So - Getty estimates 2.3 million for excess deaths between 34 and 53. Now if we add Ponton's estimate also given above of 3.5 million deaths between 24 and 39, we come up with only 5.8 million deaths, TOTAL - and that includes overlapping of the years 34-39. So I think five million would probably be a fairly accurate assessment of the lowest estimate. Certainly "under six million" would cover it. Gatoclass 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Getty explicitly excludes the famine, deportations, and kilings of non-Soviet citizens like POWs and civilians. Adding just the famine gives 7.5 million deaths, assuming a lower estimate of 5 million dead during the Holodomor. Also, "Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s." [46].Ultramarine 04:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course Getty excludes the famine. It occurred in 32-33 and his count starts from 1934. The point is that we already have Ponton's estimate of 3.5 million for ALL excess deaths between 24 and 39 - that INCLUDES the famine and everything else that happened in that period. And Getty is saying another 2.3 million from 34 on. Now if you add those two figures you come up with a total figure of 5.8 million. But in fact the two periods overlap, so really the estimate between these two sources would be lower.

As for deportations, I don't know what the lowest estimate of the death toll is there but I think I've read as low as a couple of hundred thousand. As for POW's and non-Soviet citizens, one source gives 580,000 total POW deaths and another gives 1.1 million Germans who died during population transfers or fleeing the Red Army during and after the war.

If you add them to the 5.8 million figure you still only get 7.68 million total. But then it's highly questionable just how many POW's and non-Soviet citizens died as a direct result of Stalin's policies, and how many of them died simply as a result of hardship or as a result of Red Army actions at the local level during and immediately following the war. actions and abuses, not the result of Stalin's policies.

And finally it's not clear to me whether Getty's figures for Gulag deaths also include German POW's in those camps. But if so that would be a case of double counting.

But if we suppose (somewhat generously I would think) that regime neglect or incompetence is responsible for half the non-Soviet deaths, then you've got a low figure of roughly 7 million total victims of Stalin's rule. Gatoclass 10:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


The number of POW should not be posted in this article. They came to inslave and exterminate the soviets and they started the war The number of axis pow that died in Soviet camps are 1.65 million out of a total of 5.45 million taken prisoner. (Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1) The number of Soviets who died is 2.6 million out of 5.2 million taken prisoner. Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071. Richard Overy in the Dictators Hitlers Germany Stalins Russia gives 5.6 million Soviet pows and 57% died or were killed in captivity. (Deng 11:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
Give the book names and year of publication of these Getty and Ponton books(Deng 11:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

The number of POW should not be posted in this article. They came to inslave and exterminate the soviets and they started the war

That doesn't matter. POW's are still the responsibility of the government in question, whether or not you think they didn't deserve any better is irrelevant. Those who died as a direct result of the regime's neglect should therefore still be counted. And my number is actually lower than yours, I quoted a source above which gives a total of 580,000 POW deaths for the war.

I've just been looking into Soviet deportations and it appears the archives show around 2.5 million total. I don't have figures for the death toll but assuming a third would give another 800,000 - minus the kulaks already counted by Getty gives about 400,000.

So it's: Ponton: 3.5 million excess death total between 24-39; Getty: 2.3 million excess deaths from Gulags, kulak deportation and executions from 34-53; 400,000 from other deportations; 580,000 POW deaths; 1.1 million German deaths from population transfer;

I think that would cover just about everything, wouldn't it? That would give a total figure of 7.88 million. Of course, maybe half or more of the POW's and German civilians probably died of hardship rather than Stalin's policies - so that would leave about 7 million as the minimum number, wouldn't it? Gatoclass 11:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of speculation and original research, adding researcher who have probably have not used similar methodologies. As noted, Getty himself state somewhat less tan 10 million during the 30s only as editor. Instead, give sources that have estimates for the total for Stalin's regime. Wikipedia should not contain original research.
SuperDeng, you suddenly added two sources for your earlier claim that "while according to Soviet archives, the number sentenced to death, shot and executed for any crimes during Stalin's rule does not exceed 700,000." Overy, Richard. Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Penguin Books Ltd., 2005.Simon Sebag Montefiore. Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, Knopf, 2004 (ISBN 1400042305)p 247 of the Swedish translation of the book. Very Strange choices since none of these books primarily deals with the numbers killed. I will have someone to check if you are truthful regarding Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. What is the page number for your claim regarding Overy's book? Ultramarine 12:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Finally, SuperDeng, have you actually read Getty's article, the source you earlier so often linked to? "We also know that, between 1930 and 1952-1953, 786,098 “counter-revolutionaries” were executed (or, according to another source, more than 775,866 persons “on cases of the police” and for “political crimes”)."[47] 786,098 > 700,000Ultramarine 12:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of speculation and original research, adding researcher who have probably have not used similar methodologies.

Yes, I'm aware that some of my figures are speculative, I'm just trying to find a figure that we can all agree on right now in the absence of a definitive overall figure on the low side.

As for "adding researchers who have probably not used similar methodologies", I agree it's not ideal but in the absence of an overall figure from these sources we have little choice but to add the available estimates for different periods/events in order to come up with an overall low.

Personally though, I must say I'd prefer just to go back to the "under ten million" figure. I was satisfied with that number myself, it was Deng who argued it should be much lower, and I've been trying to look at the available evidence to see if it would be possible to accomodate his view. But even counting the lows from various researchers, and adding some speculative adjustments of my own, I'm still coming up with a figure of around 7 million. So I think a return to "under ten million" is probably warranted at this stage. If we can find more definitive numbers down the track, we can change the figure to suit. What say you? Gatoclass 12:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


What do you mean Have I read And why are you putting in junk in the article I have given 2 sources for the 700k Richard Overy and Simon Sebag Montefiore Where in these 2 names do you see Getty? And do you have a problem with me reading the swedish translation of Simon Sebag Montefiore book, do you believe that the translators gave the wrong nummber that they were unable to translate the numbers 700,000 to 700,000? (Deng 17:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
And changeing the min number from less then a million to 5 is just plain bad, we have two sources saying 4 million they do NOT say 5 million. And there are without a shadow of a doubt sources that say 1 milion or even less. So the range is between less then a million to 50 million. And you have done nothing constructive in the article you only add myths which takes me days to REAL read books written by REAL professors and academics who unlike your obscure and out of date home made internet pages have a burden proof. (Deng 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but what is the breakdown of that 4 million figure Deng? I don't think those studies cover every category of potential victim, do they? Gatoclass 18:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, just because someone changes controversial numbers, that is not a basis for an accusation of vandalism. There are a variety of condradicting numbers out there. We'll never reach consensus if editors accuse each other of vandalism. Please assume good faith and keep it civil. --C33 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That ref has been here for such a long time well until Ultramarine removed it if you want a break down read the archives. I think there are in archives 8 but I could be wrong. Ofcurse we have diffrent numbers since some people love to use any home made internet page no matter how obscure or what it is based on for material. If we would only use books written by real academics who have a burden of proof and books written after the year 2000 we would have many times less problems. But since books written by people who have a burden of proof show much smaller numbers then home made internet pages, people to the right will always choose the home made internet pages no mater how obscure our obsolete over real books written by real academics who have a burden of proof. (Deng 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

It's not quite as simple as that Deng. At Wiki we have a responsibility to quote the range given by reliable sources, and part of the definition of reliable sources is that they are people qualified in the field. So even if you and I might disagree with these sources, they still have a right to appear here. RJ Rummel is the real "big numbers" man and he estimates deaths under Stalin to be in excess of fifty million. I happen to think that the guy is a shonk, but because he is a Professor Emeritus of History his estimations have a right to be quoted.

Apart from that though, on second thought I think you may have a point. If there is a reliable source that definitively states that excess deaths under Stalin amounted to no more than four million, then that figure also has a right to be quoted here, even if the author apparently doesn't take into account all the categories outlined by Ultramarine. After all, it's not for us to second guess the source and decide he didn't know about these other categories, and then add some extra numbers to make up for it. As Ultra himself frequently points out, "no original research".

So if you can give me a link to a reliable source that definitively states no more than four million excess deaths under Stalin, I would be inclined to accept that as a legitimate figure for the low. Gatoclass 18:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


What link? Two books, no internet links, books - things made out of paper. Do not confuses those 2 books with teh books made by overy and montefiore. The 2 books that quote the official numbers can be seen by just clicking on the reference after the line. (Deng 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

The article quotes books as references, but what I'd like to see are actual quotes from these books so I know exactly what they said. Gatoclass 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


As I said a few lines up, That ref has been here for such a long time if you want a break down read the archives. I think there are in archives 8 but I could be wrong. (Deng 20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC))


It is no more false then any of your internet sources, as I have explained many times it gives such a huge number of the pop which means that the famine didnt kill anyone neither did anything else basically no one died. And there are probably more internet sources out there that say that no one died what so ever and that everything was just fine. Why do you keep on trying to make a bias article what is so bloody wrong with a correct article. Stop with this nonsense of trying to twist and spin articles to suit your cause, just make correct and neutral articles. (Deng 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Joseph vs. Josef

I'm moving the article back to Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin is far more common than Josef Stalin, the results are in:

Google:

Joseph Stalin: 1,420,000

Josef Stalin: 715,000

Yahoo:

Joseph Stalin: 676,000

Josef Stalin: 390,000


And I don't think I have to tell you that it is Wikipedia policy to use the most common name. Jareand 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Less than 1 million deaths due to Stalin

SuperDeng has given this as a source: [48]. I can find nothing there to support it.Ultramarine 20:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Time out guys, that statoid page is very misleading. It lists the 1939 Population with 12 million people from the annexations of 1939-40. The Census of 1939- corrected numbers, (Stalin ordered it bumped up to 170.5 million)- was actually 168.5 million. The territory of the annexed regions was 20.3 million. This data is from Andrev's study of USSR population. The Soviets always listed the 1940 Ukranian population as 41.3 million which included 9 Million in the annexed territories. The actual Jan 1939 population was 32 million compared to 28 million in 1926. This helped to mask the loss of 5.0 million in the famine of 1932-33. Never ever accept a Soviet statistic at face value always check and double check it. --Woogie10w 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave it to make a point that Inrnet sources are carp see the pop number for 1939 would mean that there was no famine and many less people died. Real books have a burden of proof. I know you like to remove sources and then go to other pages and then complain that other people remove sources. So lets cut the crap I have used real books no less then 5 to prove you and your obscure out of date home made internet pages wrong, Quoteing itnrnet pages that have no burden of proof what so ever is just wrong like you yourself have pointed out in the freedom house areticle but when it comes to stalin then any home made internet page is just fine. And you refusall to talk on the discussion page and answer the many many many posts made gives a strong indicator that you are not intressted in a correct version only in a rightwing one (Deng 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

You have still not given any source for that less than 1 million killed. Why do you again revert to a version with this link and claim that less than 1 million died? Ultramarine 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you remove the famine, then only people who were shot are left. The page with the estimate of around 183 million pop removes the famine therefore only people shot are left and since we know that less then a million were shot well 1+1+=2 (Deng 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
But why should we remove the famine? And you are forgetting those who died in the Gulags. They were not shot. Or those killed due to deportations.Ultramarine 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont know if you can read the text I that write but I will say it one last time. DONT USE INTERNET SOURCES BECAUSE THEY SUCK. USE REAL BOOKS WRITTEN BY REAL ACADEMICS WHO HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF. AND IF YOU CAN THEN USE BOOKS WRITTEN AFTER THE YEAR 2000. Now the inernet-source gives a super high number of 183 million in 1939 that would mean that not only didnt anyone die of famine no one also died of deportations and people were makeing babies like there was no tomorrow. Now one last time Stop trying To push your views into Wiki and Start makeing a correct wiki because correctness is better then biasness, is that so hard to understand that it is better to have correctness then biases is it so hard for you to leave your political views out of wiki, why try to make something bias when you have a real chans of makeing something correct. So please stop it becuase correctness should be the aim not political bias. (Deng 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
But it is you have given an internet source for your number of less than 1 million killed? Again, there are no such numbers there at all.Ultramarine 21:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It is to prove that internet sources are a joke and there are most likely many home made internet sources that say that stalin didnt kill anyone, yes no number gives the one million but the high pop indicates that none died either. Is it so hard for you to leave your political agenda at home and try to make something good out of wiki where people can find correct information and not spinned and twisted information. (Deng 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
Giving a false source in an article is not acceptable. Since you have no sources for your statement that less than 1 million was killed, it should be removed.Ultramarine 22:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I can help you guys with the numbers. There is a Russian source- Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071 that has the data you need on losses due to Soviet repression. His data is backed up with sources that are cited. Erlikman lists the total deaths in the USSR due to Soviet repression from 1917-87 of 10.050 million not counting 7.0 million famine deaths in 1932-33. I believe his data would improve this page because he cites original Russian sources from the post Communist era. I will post the details this data to the talk page if you guys want to use it for the article. Please let me know if this will be of use.--Woogie10w 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
All recent researchers argue that they have used material from the Soviet arhieves. Your source looks interesting and a translation of his main findings would be valuable. However, I do not think it is the final word on this subject.Ultramarine 00:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It is no more a false source then your home made, obscure and obsolete internet pages, Ultramarine As I have said so many times before, the only thing false are your home made internet sources, and by the way the 50 million Are ALL deaths suffered during the time of Stalins Rule, be it from old age or from the germans. Same thing with as with the 7 million deaths during 32-33 and when it is confirmed that those 7 million are ALL deaths during that period you will quckly lose intresst in that source and as always refuse to have a coherent discussion and just ignore the respond as you have ignored the discussions here so many times. (Deng 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
It is still you have given a false internet source.Ultramarine 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion and telephone game with "1 mln deaths". AFAIR this number refers to the number of executions officially counted in NKVD/KGB archives opened since 1992. 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mikkali is right the official statistic lists only those shot after a trial. The actual number may be about 1.5 million when you count summary executions. My source is Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071.--Woogie10w 20:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I have not given any sources that are more or less faulse then yours, like you I have provided an itrnet source that like all your sources have no burden of proof and this source happen to show a super high pop date which would mean that no one died of famineor anything. Now if you could start useing real srouces from real books that I have tried to use so many times then perhaps we could move on. (Deng 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC))
But you have not given any book as support for your figure of less than 1 million, only your false Internet source. What is your source? Also, could you please try to use punctuation and consult a dictionary when you write? Ultramarine 10:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Give the guy a break, be nice, imagine if you had to contribute to Swedish Wikipedia. Anyway he is referring to those executed. When you add Gulag and Deportation deaths the total is 8 million, not counting the contoversial 7 million deaths in the famine. The number of losses in the Soviet era has been the subject of intense debate. The following link to articles in the Journal Soviet Studies presents different points of view on this topic. [[49]]. --Woogie10w 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Baseless claim

I quote this "During the early 1930s Stalin conceived the idea of having informants. An informant was anyone who reported others to the KGB. Informants were everywhere. Their main task was to report suspected anti-government activities."

This sounds more like speculation and POV. How does one substantiate "Informants were everywhere." Where is the evidence of Stalin conceiving the idea to have informants? Also, the proper name was the NKVD and not KGB (which we should know was post-Stalin).

I agree that this sounds awfully conjectural, POV and poorly written to say the least. And for one, I think the 'idea' of informants goes back tens of thousands of years... Hauser 13:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The number of deaths under Stalin -1923-1953 in proper perspective

Millions Population

Alive beginning 1923 - 137
Born 1923-53 ---------- 174
Annexed 1939-45 ----- 20
Total Population ----- 331

Died Natural Deaths ----(98) 30%
Died WW2 ---------- (27) 8%
Died Gulag-Shot -------- (8) 2%- only 1/3 of these political prisoners-rest criminals
Died Famine 1932-33 ----- (7) 2%
Alive end 1953 -- --------191 58%

Summary: 1923-53--Executed 1.5million; imprisoned or in Gulag 30 Million of whom 5 million died; deported 7.5 million of whom 1.8 million died. The 7.0 million famine deaths are listed separately since they are a controversial topic. The war dead includes 2.3 million in the territory annexed from Poland, these losses are usually considered Polish by historians outside of the former Soviet Union.


SOURCES:
Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1
Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071
--Woogie10w 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Woogie but the object is not to try and establish the number who died. That is a controversial topic and could be described as "original research".
The object is to establish the range of estimates which have been given by reliable sources. We have a solid figure at the high end - obviously it's Rummel's 51 million plus. What we are arguing about is the figure at the low end, there is disagreement here about what the low end actually is. Gatoclass 08:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that is how you source things ;) With real books real facts and not home made internet pages (Deng 17:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

Well I don't know why you've suddenly decided to cheer Woogie's contribution here Deng since he's giving a minimum figure of 7.5 million attributable to Stalin which is far higher than the claims you've been making up to now. And that's not counting the famine figures.

In fact I'm afraid I have to say that the more you post here, the more incoherent and contradictory your arguments appear to be. I really have no idea anymore what point you are trying to make, apart from disagreeing with anything Ultramarine says. Gatoclass 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Time Out, This is not original research. Just get those two sources I list and verify the data I have posted. What I have done is take secondary Russian sources and check their reilability--Woogie10w 10:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's not original research, fine.

The question is however, whether this is the lowest reliable estimate for excess deaths under Stalin. I mean, you've got an estimate here of 7.5 million excess deaths, not including the famine. I'd describe this as one of the more credible, mid-range estimates. However, what we are trying to establish is the low, not the likely middle. Deng says the low is "under one million". I'd be happy with either "under five million" or "under ten million", but Deng has been insisting it's either four million or one million, depending on what mood he's in I guess. Gatoclass 10:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, it depends on what you define as "deaths". If you decide to include famine deaths in your figures, no one in his right mind can get as low as one million.
So, estimates do not only vary because their figures are different, but also because their perimeters are. Thus, one should first define what figures (s)he considers to be "Stalin's victims", and what are not... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's partly my point. Not all sources would count the famine as being attributable to Stalin at all. And some of them have much lower figures for the famine anyhow.

Personally, I still think "under ten million" would probably suffice as a figure for the overall low unless and until we can get more definitive figures from somewhere. But try telling Deng that. Gatoclass 10:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you guys are trying to reinvent the wheel.The number of losses in the Soviet era has already been the subject of intense debate. The following link to articles in the Journal Soviet Studies presents different points of view on this topic. [[50]]. --Woogie10w 11:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that excellent link Woogie. Seems that at last we have a definitive low for the total number killed by Stalin both deliberately and through negligence (ie the famine). Wheatcroft gives a figure of 3 million deliberately killed under Stalin, from all categories, plus 2.75-3 million from the 32-33 famine.

Therefore I think we can safely say we have a low of six million. Do you agree Woogie? Gatoclass 13:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to summarize the views and statistics of the low figures and the high figures schools, listing the sources without taking sides. The articles in Slavic Review present both sides of the argument. The task of Wikipedia should be to let the readers know that there are estimates that range from 2 to 20 million and to explain why there are differences of opinion. This is a complicated and controversial topic that needs be covered from a neural POV.--Woogie10w 14:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of different estimates: [51]. Rummel's estimate is controversial and somewhat old, but he simply summarizes many other estimates, as can be seen in his tables: [52].Ultramarine 14:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with those lists is that they use only English language sources. Erlikman, a Russian, has a format similar to Rummel but he uses many Russian sources from the post communist era. This topic is complicated, I think you will agree with me once you see those articles online at Slavic Review at the link I have above. There are no easy answers to this problem. --Woogie10w 14:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
All researchers not simply doing summaries of others claim they are using Russian sources. They can understand Russian even if they are not from Russia.Ultramarine 15:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue should not with "the number" of be deaths but GULAG system. The true number will never be known. By the way can anybody provide "the number" of African Americans who died as a result of slavery from 1783 to 1865? --Woogie10w 15:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we should give a range, not state the "true" number. Regarding the number of slaves killed only in the US, I do not know. Here is Rummel's estimate of American democide for the twentieth century: [53]Ultramarine 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rummel

Rummel's numbers make a lot of sense. I have a great deal of respect for the man and have read his books. What if the USSR was a free country from 1917-89, there is no doubt in my mind that millions more would have lived longer lives. The lower numbers school count the official numbers dead in the Gulag. Rummel's higher number of 62 million dead makes sense when one compares the USSR to the west where people were free. He is saying economic and political freedom should be the norm and those 62 million should not have died an early deaths. The millions deported to Siberia, to work under barbaric conditions, were not volunteers. They are not in the official number. This is the key point to grasp when reading Rummel. Just compare East vs West Germany, Taiwan vs. PRC and North & South Korea. Rummel is a skeptic regarding Soviet statistics, which are the mainstay of the lower numbers school. He is right, we should always treat Communist data with skepticism and check and double check it. As I mentioned before the issue of "the number" is complicated and controversial.--Woogie10w 16:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your assessment of Rummel. As I've said before, I think the guy is a fraud. His numbers for communist states are far greater than ANYONE else's, and his numbers for US/Western states are by contrast ludicrously tiny. He relies totally on secondary sources and his methods appear to be entirely arbitrary. I'm suprised he hasn't been exposed as a fraud yet, but I think his time will come. Gatoclass 21:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fraud is a serious charge that I would not bring against Rummel. I believe his estimate of 62 million Soviet dead is way to high but I strongly believe he is an honest researcher. The root cause of his errors is the fact that he uses sources from before 1991 when the Soviet archives started to open up. When one compares Czarist Russia and the Stalinist USSR to that of western Europre and the US the disparity in death rates I believe is due to the lack of economic and political freedoms The USSR was a nation that used infantry to clear minefields, they were "killed in action" and in Stalins USSR many died after being deported to Siberia without a trial, their deaths do not appear in those official GULAG statistics.--Woogie10w 03:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me give a couple of examples. He estimates that over 13 million Russians were victims of Stalinist democide during the war. That means he believes that two thirds of total Russian casualties during the war were deliberately caused by Stalin. The Germans, in spite of the fact that they initiated the war and fought it with total ruthlessness, are apparently only responsible for one third of total Russian casualties.

How anyone could possibly conclude that, in the middle of a desperate war for survival, Stalin would want to kill twice as many of his own people as the enemy, I cannot imagine. But I consider this figure of his, like so many others, to be totally ludicrous.

Now compare that wildly inflated figure above to his estimate of US democide in Vietnam. Rummel estimates that in a decade of war, the US caused only 800 excess deaths due to indiscriminate shelling and bombing. That's right, 800. In ten years. That is in spite of the fact that the US expended more ordnance in Vietnam than had been expended in every war in history combined up until that point, and that estimates commonly put the civilian death toll in 'Nam at around 2 million (Rummel's estimate of civilian dead, BTW, is only 360,000).

Then there is his "methodology". Just as an example, go to his website and look at Table 6.1B. From lines 321-326, he lists the number of people estimated killed by the Vietnamese communists in the 1956 uprising. He cites four sources, which give estimates of 2000, 6000, 6000 and 10-15,000 respectively. He then extrapolates from his four sources to produce his own estimate of 13,000. What he has done is completely discard three of his four sources, then taken the midpoint of the highest estmate of 10-15,000, and rounded it up to 13,000.

You can find numerous examples of this kind of shoddy methodology in his figures. He appears to employ totally arbitrary methods to come up with the results he wants. Gatoclass 11:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Rummel cites the various sources and lists their estimates, then he makes an estimate of him own readers are given the facts to make their own judgements.
In the case of Vietnam it was not US policy target civilians per se, however the left in the US made a big deal about the bombing during the war, Jane Fonda, Kerry et al., this was a time of real serious politics. In Cambodia however there was carpet bombing that caused 60,000 Democides according to Rumell. Chapter 13 of Statistics of Democide is entitled "Death by US Bombing". --Woogie10w 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that one million or less died all I am saying is that some say that just as some say that 50 million died. now what you should do is get real books written by real people just like Woogie and start reading and not read home made internet pages. (Deng 01:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

Stalin's reaction to "Uncle Joe"

Wow, there's way to much templates on this talk page, someone should add a "too many templates" template. :p Ok, enough of uncyclopedia.

"Stalin was nicknamed "Uncle Joe" by the Western media. When told of this nickname by Franklin D. Roosevelt, he almost walked out of the Yalta Conference." --From the article, under "Other names"

I've tried to find a source for him "almost walking out" of Yalta, but only found documents that say otherwise. From Roosevelt and the Russians by Stettinius:

"Stalin then asked jsut what this meant. The President told him it was a term of endearment, as though he were a member of the family. When Stalin appeared to be offended, Molotov told us not to be deceived. "He is just pulling your log," Molotov told us. "We have known this for two years. All of Russia knows that you call him 'Uncle Joe.'" I had heard the story earlier that on some occasion before Yalta the Prime Minister was supposed to have asked the Marshal whether he minded being called "Uncle Joe." Stalin was supposed to have replied that he would like to wait on this untill Mr Churchill knew him a little better.";

--Dandin1 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Death toll

"It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and repressions are taken into account, the number of deaths that occurred from unnnatural causes under Stalin is in the millions. In attempting to collate the total number of victims of the Soviet regime under Stalin's leadership, historians have employed a wide variety of different methodologies and come up with a correspondingly wide range of results. Different researchers have claimed support for their numbers using official records in Moscow, some of which were opened after the breakup of the USSR in 1991. Estimates of the number of victims range from less than five million to fifty million or more.[54][55][56]" Can this find acceptance? Except by Deng of course, but he is blocked again for a few days. I would like the exact source for an article or book that states less than five million, otherwise less than ten would be better. Regarding fifty millions, Wheatcroft mentions a more recent source than Rummel stating this in Appendix 3. Ultramarine 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult topic that I wish I could provide a quick answer to, just " the number" and its source. The demographic data in Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1 will help to clarify the issue. Here are the facts. 1- in 1914 the Russian death rate was 3% per annum, 2-From 1923-53 the average death rate was 2.8% per annum including the famine of 32-33 but excluding WW2, . The US death rate was 1.1% during the same time period. However the Soviet death rate had decreased to 1.1% in 1953. The data tells us that in the 20s and 30's life was on a medeival level but that progress was made to improve the standard of living. This point needs to be made when assessing Soviet losses. The reality was that millions were deported to harsh regions against their will and died early deaths. These deaths to not appear in those official statistics. The lower numbers school lists only those bodies counted in the Gulag and persons executed after a trial. The higher numbers school compares Stalins USSR to the west and counts the excess deaths as caused by the government. The answer to that argument would be that life was at a primative level in 1923 and instant progress was not possible. Somehow the readers need to grasp the fact that milions died of famines and forced labor in Stalins USSR but that life in Czarist Russia was also harsh. In 1913 most Russians lived in conditions that had not changed since the middle ages, health care and education were unknown, they were semi-serfs bullied by the landowners.I think Russians would understand this better than folks in the west. Maybe they can help to rewrite that Dead Toll section--Woogie10w 21:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Somehow the readers need to grasp the fact that milions died of famines and forced labor in Stalins USSR but that life in Czarist Russia was also harsh. In 1913 most Russians lived in conditions that had not changed since the middle ages, health care and education were unknown unfortunately you fail to note that average food consumption in the USSR during the late 1980s did not bypass the level of average food consumption of the urban population of Czarist Russia in 1913. Official sources from 1988... plus living experience!--Constanz - Talk 06:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean Czarist Russia was a good place to live in, but the situation was not that bad in all the different spheres; also, the literacy rate was rather high in Western parts of the empire.--Constanz - Talk 06:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I should mention the fact that during the Stalin era the demographic structure of the population had been changed by the losses of the war and communist repression. The 1953 population was younger because so many adults had died unnatural deaths. The surviving younger popoulation had a lower death rate. This bolsters the argument of the higher numbers of victims school rather than defending the communists--Woogie10w 12:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Another very important fact that must be understood is that the lower numbers school- 5 million deaths- would include only adults in the Gulag and those sentenced to be shot. The higher numbers school- 15-50 million deaths- would include the entire population that would have had a higher death rate because of government economic policy, deportations and collectivization. The higher numbers school is saying that if Russia was a democracy with a free economy millions of deaths would have never occured--Woogie10w 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Important point. Many seem to argue for 20 million deaths or a slightly smaller number, if incuding all causes. For example Wheatcroft seems to argue for this number in Appendix 3.Ultramarine 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've misread that Appendix. Wheatcroft is not arguing for a figure of 20 million - he's simply saying that that would have been an accurate representation of the normally accepted figure at a particular time. What he's basically saying is that Davies misrepresented the history of research in this area.

Wheatcroft doesn't give a figure of total excess deaths due to the regime in that Appendix, but in other articles in that series he appears to clearly give a figure of 3 million direct victims and 2.75-3 million victims of the 32-33 famine. But I do note that in the Appendix you quote he appears to argue that the famine was just that, a famine caused by grain shortage, not something engineered by the regime. If that is Wheatcroft's belief, then I guess we have a low figure of 3 million total from Wheatcroft. Gatoclass 18:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"The total tally of his victims can never be exactly calculated, but is normally considered to have been about 20 million." No qualifier or statement that he disagrees. Please state what article you refer to when you say he gives a different number for the total killed.Ultramarine 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about what would have been an accurate statement by Davies about the consensus amongst historians at the time. This is not a reference to Wheatcroft's own estimate of excess deaths. Wheatcroft doesn't give his own estimate in that particular article.

However, he appeared to give his own definitive estimates in other articles from that series which I read the other day. I can't recall now which ones you can find those estimates in, but they are the articles pertaining to those particular issues.

Edit: Okay, here's his estimate for total killed in repressions, excluding famine. This one you can find in the essay entitled The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45:

The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans.

So Wheatcroft's estimate for total excess deaths in all categories, excluding famine, is 3 million. Still looking up the famine figure, watch this space...

Edit: I'm sure I found a total figure of 3 million deaths from famine in one of the later articles, but in his 1990 article entitled More light on the scale of repression and excess mortality in the Soviet Union in the 1930's, Wheatcroft gives an estimate of 3.75-4 million deaths from the famine, I quote:

If we were to accept a normal level of mortality as 19.7 per thousand, the elevation in mortality in 1933 would be equivalent to 2.9 million, and additional losses could be added for the higher than normal mortality in 1932 which would add another 0.1 million, ie 3 million excesss death in all...Even if we accept that the scale of mortality in the omitted categories was much higher than the mortality in the part of the country covered by these registration figures, it seems unlikely to me that we would be able to find more than 1 or at most 2 million extra deaths to add to 2.75 to 3 million calculated above.

So, 3 million from repression plus 3.75-4 million from famine, gives a total for Wheatcroft of 6.75-7 million total victims of Stalin. So unless or until I can find a smaller figure I guess "under 7 million" would be our low estimate at this stage. Gatoclass 09:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, he estimates a lower number than 20 million. But he has revised up his number for the famine victims, in his 2004 book he finds 5.5 to 6.5 million victims.[57] Ultramarine 11:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to remember that from earlier in the discussion. although I don't recall the exact context. Oh well, I guess we can say "under ten million" then. Gatoclass 15:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a peek at Ann Appelbaums book Gulag- It will help you. She puts the death toll at least 2.7 million--Woogie10w 16:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, Woogie, we're not looking for the likely figure - we're just looking for the lowest figure available, so we can provide a range between the high and low. Gatoclass 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to understand how the low and high figures are derived and explain that to the readers in clear and concise English. People may questions.--Woogie10w 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be appropriate. Gatoclass 10:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The "low" and "high" schools engaged in a debate prior to the fall of communism because official data was not availiable. Today we know the number of executions was 1 million, the deaths in the Gulag are estimated to be at least 2.7 million by Ann Appelbaum a well known and respected historian. Then there is the issue of those people who were deported( Estonians, Poles, Chechens ect) They are not listed in the Gulag figures and those losses are 1.8 million out of 8 million deported according to sources cited by Erlikman. Then there is the issue of famine losses. The demographic evidence that has become availiable since 1991 clearly indicates losses of 7 million( 5 million in the Ukraine and 2 million in Russia). Those are the facts--Woogie10w 10:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, those are not "the facts". Those are the estimates by some particular historians.

Our job is not to cherry pick our preferred figure from this or that historian, it is to provide the range of figures that reliable sources have provided. That range is currently between Wheatcroft (8.5-9.5 million) to Rummel (50 million plus). Gatoclass 11:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the Holocaust what would you do post the range ? Post the low figure of 300,000 quoted by the right wing Holocaust deniers and the high figure of 6 million? --Woogie10w 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are the facts! Your concept of a range of figures is unprofessional and totally unacceptable. I would be fired on the spot if I presented a report to my boss in such a format.--Woogie10w 11:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What needs to done is to give the readers the facts: 1- Officialy recorded excutions after a Soviet trial were c. 800,000, this does not include summary executions. 2- The Pulitzer Prize winning author Ann Appelbum estimates deaths in the Gulag at least 2.7 million. 3-The number persons deported is estimated by the Russian Historian Vadim Erlikman at 7.5 million of whom 1.8 million died. 4-The losses in the 1933 famine were 7 million, cite the Russian Academy of Science report of 1993 on Soviet Population as the source and mention that there is debate concerning the responsibility of the government for these losses.
The stories of Wheatcroft and Rumell and a range of 2 to 50 million belong in a special article on the history of the Gulag.--Woogie10w 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The facts are disputed. In the case of controversy, wikipedia states values that can be attributed to notable, verifiable sources and lets the readers draw their own conclusion. It is not for the editors to decide with "facts" are correct and which are not. --C33 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
OK lets have the other people post their range of numbers and cite the sources and discuss the matter. Their version is not on the table.--Woogie10w 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou C33. Woogie, I have already posted Wheatcroft's figure of 8.5-9.5 million above. If I find a reliable source with a lower number, I will update the article then. Until then, "under ten million" seems an appropriate expression for the low. Gatoclass 05:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys need to explain in detail what is meant by "five million to fifty million or more". --Woogie10w 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC) By 50 million or more they mean they are lying.
No,no! It did for their own good. When folks see 50 million dead they are bound to ask the question where did that statistic come from, show me I am from Missouri. And don't be suprised if they ask how the number was derived. I do know one thing for sure that if the USSR had the same death rate as the USA that 50 million more Soviets would have been alive in 1953(not counting 26 million more war dead). If those 50 million deaths were caused by the government is the matter that is being discussed.--Woogie10w 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Getoclass, under 10 is correct but so is under 4 as well, since we do have sources saying only 4 million died as direct result of his actions. Read what woogie says he knows his numbers well. I vote for that woggie rewrites the part and we go with what ever he does (Deng 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

Well Wheatcroft says that too. He attributes only 1 million to "purposive killings" by the regime, however he also holds that another 2 million died in the Gulags along with 5 to 6 million who died from famine due to the regime's negligence. And I think most historians would agree with that.

If you have a source which says only three to four million purposive killings and which at the same time denies any responsibility on the regime's part for the famine deaths, by all means post it here and we'll alter the low accordingly. Gatoclass 04:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pulitizer prize winning author Ann Appelbaum notes on page 583 of book Gulag "no death figures compiled by Gulag authorities can ever be considered reliable" We must also account for the the deaths due to the deportations which have a seperate section in your article. Why only Wheatcroft as your source, is this guy God? You need to breakout out the reasons for the losses and post your range for each, citing the sources in the footnotes- 1- Executions,including estimated summary executions 2-Gulag plus the Labor colonies, 3-Deportations and 4- the 1933 famine in Russia-Kazakastan as well as the Ukraine. That death toll section still needs a lot of work--Woogie10w 09:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Wheatcroft is not God, he just happens to be the guy who's provided the lowest estimate I've seen so far. As for "breaking out the losses", I already did this in relation to Wheatcroft, which I posted above but for your benefit I'll repost it now:

The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans.

He has also given a figure of 5.5-6.5 million for the 32-33 famine. And yes, as I already said I think a breakdown of the losses in the Death Toll section would be useful, I know this section could do with a rewrite but I haven't found the time to get around to it yet. Also, I've been trying to ensure a consensus here on the talk page before I bother to give it a go, because I get rather tired of taking the time to do a rewrite only to have someone come along and revert the whole thing five minutes later. Gatoclass 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we both agree that a rewrite is neceaaary. I quoted that figure of 4.5 million from a website review of the book by the publisher. In her section on the death toll Appebaum DOES NOT cite this figure of 4.5 million. She believes the actual figure is greater than official figure of 2.7 million but does not provide an estimate.--Woogie10w 16:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys but I have no time for a redo job on that section. I am busy crunching numbers in the real world. If you need any help just post an inquiry to my talk page.--Woogie10w 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Totally Disputed Tag

What do we need to do to remove the totally disputed tag. I believe Ultramarine added it during the course of a dispute with SuperDeng. The version as it stands now is close to the version Ultramarine wanted. Is it safe to remove the tag, or do we need to resolve further disagreements? --C33 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is fine by me, and by and large was fine by me weeks ago. I think some sections, especially the Death Toll section, could do with a rewrite, but that's another issue. There's nothing in the article I have a particular objection to ATM. Gatoclass 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

I do not get this, still on wikipedia, wrong birthday, cant you people agree on anything? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.1.84 (talk • contribs) .

Death Toll

Okay Gatoclass. Lets talk before this gets out of hand.

--JohnFlaherty 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there John. First, you would have to provide evidence of a consensus figure of 20 million, and I don't believe you can do so. No-one has done a poll of all the historians involved in this issue, so it simply isn't possible to come up with a consensus figure. White's opinion on his webpage that there is a consensus of 20 million is no more than that, opinion. And as far as I can determine, White himself has no credentials in the field at all.
Secondly, claiming that Stalin's death toll is "the second highest after Mao" is again contentious. To begin with, we don't have a consensus of 20 million in any case. What about the Nazis? They killed tens of millions. What about the Japanese? How many did they kill? Nobel prize economist Amartya Sen has also calculated that due its poorer emphasis on health care, India has killed more human beings every eight years than Mao killed in his "moment of shame" during the Great Leap Forward.
So basically, none of this summation is accurate or verifiable, and that's why it's got to go. Regards, Gatoclass 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I am going to put it back. I said lets talk. That does not mean you get to just revert back again. It is very accurate and as verifiable as possible. How do you justify ANY number under your criteria?

You are re-writing history. The Nazi's did not kill more than Stalin. "Consensus" on that (not a " "fact" but so tight a fiqure that none will dispute it) is six million killed in the holocaust. Only holocaust deniers disbute that fiqure. I provided a link to info on the consensus of twenty million. I will get more. The fiqures are accurate. Can you cite the fiqures you just threw out? --JohnFlaherty 16:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually for the Nazis it's more like 12-15 million outside of war casualties. Six pertains solely to the Jews. I agree that there is a consensus at around the 20 figure though, at least for Stalin's tenure. --TJive 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tjive. You are correct. I meant to clarify Jewish Holocaust victims. That consensus - which is just that - consensus not fact - is agreed to by all but Holocaust deniers.--JohnFlaherty 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW - The entry specifically says "consensus" not fact or absolute number. It is preceeded by the statement that says we don't know for sure and that the range is 5-50 million.--JohnFlaherty 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

John, under Wiki rules the onus is on YOU to provide evidence for a claim you make in an edit. If you cannot come up with evidence from a reliable source that "there is a consensus figure of 20 million" for the number of Stalin's victims, then that statement has no business being in the article.
Secondly, the link you provided is a link to Matthew White's opinion and he's just a guy with a website, not a reliable source.
Thirdly, it's absurd to say Stalin killed more people than Hitler. Hitler killed at least 20 million Russians in his invasion of Russia alone, and we haven't even got to the Holocaust yet. According to international law, Hitler is also legally responsible for ALL the deaths that occurred in the Western/Mediterranean theatres, since prime responsibility lies with the aggressor.
Therefore I'm going to revert again. I would ask you not to revert again until you can provide me with acceptable evidence from reliable sources that your statements are correct, because you certainly haven't done so yet. And as I've said I don't believe you can provide such evidence. Gatoclass 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what personal polemics about the culpability of Hitler have to do with this article. --TJive 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I will revert it back again and we will both be at three reverts for the day.

It is not absurd at all. The death toll is not about the war dead. For that you must include German as well. It is about those criminally killed. Those numbers are documented all over the place. Just because the evidence is not acceptable to you does not mean it is not true. What would you consider acceptable? The authors of the Black Book on communism not good enough? Why is your evidence (of which I have seen no citations) superior?

I would ask you to stop reverting my entry until we can reach consensus.--JohnFlaherty 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I am going to get citations, add them, and THEN revert the article back to the accurate account and they will stay that way.--JohnFlaherty 17:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou John, appreciate that. Gatoclass 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Personal polemics? Whatever do you mean? It's a fact that at least 20 million Russians died as a consequence of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. It's not "polemics". Millions of Germans also died, along with Rumanians, Hungarians and Italians. And that's before we get to the 6 million Jews, 1 million Gypsies, and (from memory) 5 million Poles who perished under Hitler's rule, not to mention the many other victims of Nazism.
Neither of you have even commented on Amartya Sen's conclusion that poor health facilities kill more Indians every 8 years than died during Mao's great leap forward. What about the United States, some sources estimate that the US has been directly or indirectly responsible for more than 16 million deaths around the world in wars or proxy wars since the end of World War Two.
So claiming that the Soviet Union is "responsible for the second highest toll" of any state is a highly contentious, POV statement, and therefore it ought not to be in the article. Gatoclass 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. "Polemics" refers to your arguments, back and forth, apportioning blame for deaths.
  2. 20 million Russians, and the other figures, are a matter of debate just as deaths under Stalin.
  3. I see you are preempting sources already by alluding to Chomsky's response to the Black Book.
  4. Hitler, India, the US, and Mao have, or should have, nothing to do with this.
  5. I never claimed that that phrase should appear there, and it shouldn't.

--TJive 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not engaging in polemics. I'm trying to keep polemics out of the article!
As you yourself say, "20 million Russians, and the other figures, are a matter of debate just as deaths under Stalin." That's just my point. They ARE matters of debate, and yet they are being alluded to in the article as though they were matters of FACT, which they are not.
As for your statement that "Hitler, India, the US and Mao have...nothing to do with this", then why are you defending the reference to Mao in the article that I have reverted for much the same reason? It seems pretty clear to me you aren't even aware of the material that is under discussion here. I suggest you go and actually read the content we are having a dispute over before you start accusing me once again of engaging in polemics. Regards, Gatoclass 17:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your fiqures on the U.S. , Inida, etc., etc., et al are red herrings. They have zero bearing on this issue. I have never heard of them until now and they are entirely besides the point.

The point is that Joseph Stalin was an barbaric animal. That is not POV. It is fact. A mass murder as bad or worse than Adolph Hitler. If he is not, then the inhumanity and evil of Hitler, Pol Pot, and others are also POV and the words evil and murder have no meaning. The issue is about accounting for the millions of souls who died as a direct result of his misanthropy. I don't care on wit about your attempts and moral equivalence. You would never haggle over how many Jews Hitler murdered, and you should not. They are as verifiable as humanly possible - as are Stalin's numbers.

The range is 5-50 million murdered. 20 million is on the LOW end of the mean between those estimates and is a fiqure that has been arrived to numerous times. We accounted, in the article, for the fact that the numbers in question are not positive. They are consensus. We have accounted for the fact that there is a range of possible deaths. Your continued stonwalling of this issue is the only POV I see here.

That section of the entry will be going back and will not be changed just as soon as I can get my references in order.--JohnFlaherty 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try putting "unrealistically" back in as well. What a hypocrite. You claim that your whole enlitened view on this is about nothing less than an objection to "POV" and you revert to the most POV section of the entry?--JohnFlaherty 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please refer to an instance where I either reverted to JohnFlaherty's changes or voiced support for them? No you can not, because I did not. I find them flawed, but workable. I do not feel the same for characterizations of statistics as "unrealistic". --TJive 03:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unrealistically" was not my word, and if I'd been in less of a hurry last night I might have taken the time to delete it myself, instead of just restoring to my former version. I didn't bother deleting it because it was very late last night where I am posting from and I figured someone else would quickly correct it. Gatoclass 03:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Joseph Stalin was an barbaric animal. That is not POV. It is fact. A mass murder as bad or worse than Adolph Hitler.
The fact that you make such perjorative statements about Stalin only emphasises your own strong POV on this issue. You may think he was a "barbaric animal", but many Russians still see him as a national hero, and as the founder and saviour of his nation in a time of dire extremity. You may not agree with that assessment, but your opinions have no more place on Wiki than mine. What we are trying to do is state the facts in an objective and evenhanded manner. Wiki is not a soapbox for our personal views.
The range is 5-50 million murdered. 20 million is on the LOW end of the mean between those estimates and is a fiqure that has been arrived to numerous times.
Nonsense. 20 million is not on the low end at all. Wheatcroft has spent years arguing that the figure of 20 million, touted by Conquest and some others is far too high. Rummel, as far as I know, is pretty much way out on his own with his figure of 50 million plus.
Most of the later estimates, based on archival research rather than the anecdotal and literary references of people like Conquest, have come up with much lower figures than this 20 million. And if there is any consensus building in the more recent research at all, it is that the figure of 20 million is too high. Gatoclass 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts regarding excess deaths during the Stalin era are as follows.
A. Executions
The official total of executions from 1921-53 is 799,257. This does not include executions of foreign nationals or summary executions. Vadim Erlikman, a Russian historian , estimates an additional 700,000 summary executions in the USSR and 450,000 German civilians killed in 1945.
B. Gulag
The official total of Gulag deaths from 1930-53 is 1,713,419 , this includes prisons and labour camps but does not include deaths in transit and premature deaths of released inmates due to overwork. The official total does not include Gulag deaths from 1921-29. Vadim Erlikman, a Russian historian , estimates an additional 3.3 million Gulag-prison deaths from 1921-53.
C. Deportations
There is no official data for premature deaths of the estimated 5 million Soviet citizens deported during the Stalin era. Vadim Erlikman, a Russian historian , estimates 800,000 deaths of these deportees 1937-53.
D. Collectivization - and Famine of 1933
Demographic losses due to Collectivization and the famine are 8 million. per the 1993 Russian Academy of Science study by Andreev
E. Russian Revolution
Red terror deaths during the Revolution are estimated by Vadim Erlikman, a Russian historian at 2 million --Woogie10w 11:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC) F. Axis POWs
Official Soviet data lists the deaths of 630,000 Axis Pows in captivity, this does not include deaths of military personnel captured on the battlefield who died during transit to the camps--Woogie10w 11:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) The above categories listed above total approximately 18 million excess deaths during the period 1917-1953.
--Woogie10w 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not "the facts" Woogie. They are (with one exception) the opinion of one single Russian historian. Wheatcroft says the death toll is between 6.5 and 9.5 million, of all causes. What makes Erlikman's figure more "factual" than Wheatcroft's - apart from your apparent preference for him, that is?
And why are you trying to shoehorn into the equation Erlikman's estimate of 2 million deaths during the Red Terror? The debate is about the number who died under Stalin's rule. He did not become GenSec until 1922, and it took him a couple of years at least to consolidate power into his own hands. It's disingenuous of you to try and inflate the tally by including these victims - not to mention revealing your own obvious agenda on this issue.
All you've managed to prove is that by combining the estimates of two historians of your choice, you can come up with a figure of 16 million. Apart from the fact that that figure itself is still well short of 20 million, you have done nothing to demonstrate that there is a consensus around a figure of 20 million, which is what this debate is about. Gatoclass 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your predictable. I knew you would latch onto my comments about Stalin. I also knew you would convienently ignore the comments about murder & evil having no meaning if you disagree. Hitler has some admirers too. Are you prepared to tell me that you do not think Hitler was evil? Are you going to tell me that is POV? Not to mention that, as usual, your argument is a straw man. I never said that any of the wording I used should be included in the article. My opinions on Stalin have nothing to do with getting the record on his murders corrected. Your citations and quotes are refuted by numerous sources. You are not going to hijack this article by denying legitimate fiqures or by quoting a few sources who disagree.--JohnFlaherty 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of sources cited at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin which prove the consensus and the fact that you do not approve of these as legitimate betray your biases.

I suggest we take a vote and get a consensus here. Does anyone second that?--JohnFlaherty 13:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's get back to the point. The point is, you have not demonstrated that there is a consensus amongst historians on a figure of 20 million. Even Matthew White's very limited sample which you quote here shows no consensus, in spite of his claim to have found one. He cites half a dozen researchers estimating 40 million or more, half a dozen estimating under ten million, and half a dozen estimating around 20 million. Even supposing this was an accurate poll of historians' views, where is the consensus? There isn't one.
Secondly, it is not true to say Stalin's regime is the second worst in regards to excess deaths in the 20th century after Mao's because Hitler for one has a worse record than Stalin. These are the two statements I objected to and you have still failed to provide any credible evidence to back them up.
Calling for a "vote" on the issue to try and compensate for your lack of evidence is not in my view a valid response, particularly given the current shortage of editors involved in this discussion.
As for your claim that I "conveniently ignored" your comments about murder and evil, I ignored them because it's a large and difficult subject to come to grips with or say anything meaningful about in the space of a few paragraphs. And because I was short of time. And because none of it, after all, is strictly relevant to the subject at hand, which is whether or not you can back your claims with credible evidence from reliable sources. But if you really want to have a debate about who does and does not qualify for the label "evil mass murderer of the 20th century", I'm prepared to oblige, albeit with some reluctance. Gatoclass

15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Give us the breakdown of Wheatcroft’s number. Please tell us: The estimated deaths due to executions, Gulag, Deportations , the Collectivization & 1933 famine and of Axis Pows. Now is the time when the piano stops playing and the cards are spread on the table. Show us your hand.--68.236.161.237 16:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)--Woogie10w 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

There are no official figures on deaths to due to deportations, Estonians and Poles were roadkill in the eyes of Stalin's bureaucrats--Woogie10w 16:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He cites half a dozen researchers estimating 40 million or more, half a dozen estimating under ten million, and half a dozen estimating around 20 million.

Wrong again. He cites thirty sources. Tweleve of which claim 20 million, ten claim around 50 million, eight claim less than 20 (around 10 million). So the majority of his meticulously cited sources (twenty two out of thirty) say the toll was 20-50 million killed. The mean of all sources was 30 million.

it is not true to say Stalin's regime is the second worst in regards to excess deaths in the 20th century after Mao's because Hitler for one has a worse record than Stalin.

POV. You cannot back that up because it is not true. If you tried, you would be ignoring your own arguments - the upper range of Stalin's numbers are at 50 million.

Calling for a "vote" on the issue to try and compensate for your lack of evidence is not in my view a valid response, particularly given the current shortage of editors involved in this discussion.

Your biases make me barely interested in what you consider valid. In addition, you're again wrong. Your evidence is weak and short. I have tons.

I do not see anything valid in your rejection of these sources. I see bias. I see no reason to continue to allow the entry to stand the way it is. I suggest we mention that the majority of investigations list his death toll at over twenty million (that removes the word "consensus" at twenty since the consensus is actually great than 20).--JohnFlaherty 16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't cite 30 sources. He cites 25 sources, some of them are double counted - 7 sources for 34 million or higher, 10 for 20-30 million, and 8 for 15 million or less. Where is the consensus for 20 million here?
Furthermore, I doubt you have any idea who these people are or whether they constitute reliable sources or not. I notice that one of White's sources in another section is "some guy on the internet". This is hardly a validation of White's criteria for source selection, is it?
You cannot back that up because it is not true. If you tried, you would be ignoring your own arguments - the upper range of Stalin's numbers are at 50 million
Ignoring my own arguments? How? You were claiming, on the basis of a "consensus" figure of 20 million for deaths under Stalin, that he was the second worst mass killer of the 20th Century after Mao. I simply pointed out that on that criteria, he would not be the second worst mass murderer because both Hitler and Tojo have demonstrably higher totals. That would put him at least fourth in line, wouldn't it?
I suggest we mention that the majority of investigations list his death toll at over twenty million (that removes the word "consensus" at twenty since the consensus is actually great than 20)
That's an even more indefensible position than your original one! You cannot possibly talk about a "majority" when the only source you have is a brief quote from a handful of sources of unknown validity from somebody's website. Perhaps you should have a re-read of Wiki's policy concerning the meaning of reliable sources. Gatoclass 17:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Woogie, I don't need to give you a breakdown of Wheatcroft's figures, because I've already given you his collective figure, as quoted from an article of his that you yourself provided. Let me quote again:

The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans.

He clearly states in that paragraph that this is his collective figure for all the categories we have previously discussed, excepting the famine.

But in any case it's irrelevant to this discussion what Wheatcroft's figure is, just as it's irrelevant what Erlikman's figure is. What we are trying to establish is whether or not there is a "consensus" figure amongst historians of 20 million, and I don't believe any evidence has yet been provided to demonstrate that - apart from Mr White's opinion on his website, that is. Gatoclass 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC) The statement “consensus of historian’s” ; those are mealy mouthed weasel words. Just give us the details of the numbers you want to post--Woogie10w 17:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't cite 30 sources. He cites 25 sources, some of them are double counted - 7 sources for 34 million or higher, 10 for 20-30 million, and 8 for 15 million or less. Where is the consensus for 20 million here?

You’re right. I said it is more accurate to state the consensus is for GREATER than 20 million. And my accounting of the numbers was far better than your latest attempt at dismissal – leaving the impression that it was “half a dozen”.

Furthermore, I doubt you have any idea who these people are or whether they constitute reliable sources or not.

Did I read every book? No. Did you? Talk about a subjective and unverifiable claim. I have read Brzezinski. He is hardly a biased source and NO conservative on this issue. Your claims are unverifiable.

I notice that one of White's sources in another section is "some guy on the internet". This is hardly a validation of White's criteria for source selection, is it?

You are a master at red herrings and other false arguments sir. Because one source is that you discount all the others?

I simply pointed out that on that criteria, he would not be the second worst mass murderer because both Hitler and Tojo have demonstrably higher totals.

You keep saying that. It is not true.

That's an even more indefensible position than your original one! You cannot possibly talk about a "majority" when the only source you have is a brief quote from a handful of sources of unknown validity from somebody's website.

It is actually more defensible actually and I’ve proven it. I notice that all you have done in this entire discourse is discount others evidence and provided none of your own.

And, again, you tell untruths and deliberately mislead. The validity of the sources is not in question. I know a few first hand and have seen others not mentioned on that site. The “somebody’s website” is a pathetic attempt to inject doubt to the sources by implying he made them up. The site in question is simply a list of sources compiled by the website owner. If you prefer, I will re-compile the list from Amazon.com. It will be the same.--JohnFlaherty 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts on the issue are clear and I am going to alter the current article, but I'll make one more attempt at compromise first - since you have made zero attempts, I would like to know what you think we should say in the article about this subject?--JohnFlaherty 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you offer a re-write of the paragraph here on the discussion page describing what you think it should say?--JohnFlaherty 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I agree this debate is pretty fruitless and we'd be better off trying to come up with a different construction we can all agree on. I certainly agree that the section as it stands, with its referral to excess deaths as being somewhere between five and fifty million, is pretty lame.
I'd be willing to see something along the lines of "more recent research from the Russian archival sources indicates that the likely figure lies somewhere between 8 and 16 million". This would cover both Wheatcroft's and Erlikman's estimates, who I am prepared to accept on Woogie's recommendation as a reliable source.
Beyond that, I'm still undecided though. And as it's very late here again, I really can't spend any more time thinking about it tonight. Gatoclass 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I find the wording acceptable but not the fiqures. They are far too low. 50 Million is too high.

I do not understand how you justify two sources (both of which just HAPPEN to agree with your views) and not the sources that justify the higher numbers. I must assume a hopeless bias.

You discount a whole swath of sources that indicate a much higher death toll than the TWO sources you are willing to accept as bonafide. If I was going to act like you, I would demand we go with the average of 30 million, but I am not so I won't.

8-16 million ignores Brzezinski's fiqures as well as Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, and Andrzej Paczkowski (along with a slew of others) who all see the numbers as higher (over 20 million).

I agree with the wording but your numbers are insultingly low. Insulting to his victims and to me as I have sought agreement and took the lower number of 20 million (in lieu of the mean of 30 and the high of 50) and you continue to push the very low end of the estimates, which have the least credibility. I tried compromise several times. You will not compromise at all. You continue to advocate the least reliable fiqures which have the least support. I have been fair and open minded and you have continued to push the same position. When I asked for your example of a good compromise I expected better. 8-16 million is a joke.

I will use your wording but I am going to use 20 million. It is the most plausable estimate (8-16 million is insulting). I propose; "Estimates of the number of victims have ranged from less than five million to fifty million or more. [8] [9] [10] Recent research from the Russian archival sources and others indicates that the likely figure lies somewhere between 20 and 30 million."

Out of respect, I will wait until you get back to this tomorrow. If someone else would like to weigh in with a proposal that would be great as well.--JohnFlaherty 19:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Russian archival sources only document 800,000 executions and 1.7 million Gulag deaths. See Ann Applebaum’s book on the Gulag has an appendix on the death toll. She does not accept the official figures as being the final word on the subject. Erlikman, a compiler of statistical data, estimates 1.5 million executions including 700,000 summary executions, 5 Million Gulag deaths including 600,000 deaths from 1922-29; 800,000 deaths of persons deported not included in official statistics and 8 million deaths during the collectivization-Famine.--Woogie10w 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC

I have been looking at woogie's page and his entries. He is the recipient of a Wikipedia award for research in the area of WWII casualties (a related topic to say the least). His work has been reviewed by Wikipedia peers and recognized for its quality. His take on these numbers would be acceptable to me.

What do you think Woogie? What does your view boil down to on the two points of contention? In a nutshell.--JohnFlaherty 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC) We need to list the official death toll of 2.5 million and that it not accepted by Ann Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prize winning author, as being the final word on this subject. Mention should be made of the fact that it does not include deaths due to summary executions, the Gulag from 1921-29, deaths of Gulag inmates in transit or those released on the verge of death, deaths of deported persons, famine and collectivization deaths and Polish /Axis POWs. Readers should be aware that there is a vigorous debate on the topic and the link to the articles by Conquest and Wheatcroft should be added along with Mr. Whites list. Erlikman’s tally of 16 million deaths could be mentioned but with a caution that it is only an estimate. The different components of the toll should be mentioned, executions in the Purge, the Gulag, deportations of minorities and the Collectivization.--Woogie10w 20:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying 2.5 million should be the estimate? I am confused.

Can you offer a proposed entry similar to what Gatoglass and I wrote?--JohnFlaherty 22:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your suggestion a great deal I am just confused as to the numbers. Sorry that I am missing it.--JohnFlaherty 22:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Readers should be aware that there is a vigorous debate on the topic and the link to the articles by Conquest and Wheatcroft should be added along with Mr. Whites list. Erlikman’s tally of 16 million deaths could be mentioned but with a caution that it is only an estimate.
Well you seem to have shifted your ground here Woogie. A few posts prior to this, you stated unequivocally that Erlikman was providing "the facts" in regard to this matter. But now that I have accepted his figure, suddenly it has only become an "estimate". May I ask what has caused this apparent change of mind? Gatoclass 05:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose; "Estimates of the number of victims have ranged from less than five million to fifty million or more. Recent research from the Russian archival sources and others indicates that the likely figure lies somewhere between 20 and 30 million."

The problem with that John, is that I don't believe it is an accurate statement. The operative phrase is recent research from the Russian archival sources. The point is that the archival records, as Woogie has appeared to affirm several times in earlier discussion, do not support the higher figures. AFAIK, the higher figures come from earlier research, such as that by Conquest, and are based, in Wheatcroft's words, on "anecdotal and literary sources" rather than archival material.

It seems to me only reasonable that we should place more emphasis on the more recent data, based as it is on meticulous research from the archives, rather on these earlier, anecdotally based claims, some of which seem to have relied on little more than guesswork. I don't see how anyone could conclude that such an approach is biased, on the contrary, it's the obvious thing to do, ensuring as it does that Wiki's estimate reflects the latest research and not the more outdated and less scientific conclusions. Gatoclass 05:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've included my suggested sentence about the 8-16 million in the article section, with refs to Wheatcroft and Erlikman. I realize we are still discussing the matter, but it's only intended to be a temporary fix to the rather lame current conclusion that the number lies somewhere between five and fifty million. Gatoclass 06:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You have some cheek Gatoglass. Unbelievable. I wait before making changes, out of respect since you claimed you would be away for the night, and you go ahead and make that lame, insulting edit by fiat anyway, totally disregarding any other views.

You refuse to accept legitimate sources, you cherry pick ridiculous estimates that support your views alone, you make no effort at compromise or consensus, and you choose to throw every attempt to reach out back in my face.

You keep refering to the same couple of sources while disregarding the majority of evidence to the contrary. The propensity of evidence points to higher numbers. I am reverting the changes until we can reach a consensus. I would like to hear more from Woogie.--JohnFlaherty 10:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC) The article by Michael Ellman "Soviet Repression Statistics:Some Comments" (See link Nr.10 in the Stalin article) will be helpful in understanding the problems relating to the official Soviet repression statistics.----Woogie10w 12:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)63.42.44.231 12:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I waited practically all day for you to turn up and comment before I decided to go ahead with an edit John. And I did say it was no more than a temporary fix until we came to an agreement. I never expected you to agree with it but I thought anything was better than just leaving "five to fifty million" which is a pretty silly summary.
But now that you're back, allow me to propose a compromise. How about if I say the more recent archival research suggests a figure of between 8 and 20 million, instead of 8 and 16? That would encompass both Wheatcroft's figure (who has worked very closely from the archives) and Conquest (who at least claims support from the archives). Since it will therefore include your preferred figure of 20 million, would that be acceptable to you? Gatoclass 12:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A more detailed approach

Woogie, I have spent much of the day going back through this page and re-reading other texts to try and get a handle on this issue. I'm loosely considering a rewrite of the section detailing some of the more credible sources including breakdowns, as we have previously discussed. For my part I intend to use Wheatcroft. Are there any sources you would like to see quoted? I assume you would like Erlikman and/or Applebaum, or perhaps that Russian guy (forgot his name, Andreev?) If so, I'd appreciate it if you posted a breakdown of their figures either here or on my homepage, provided I agree they are suitable sources for inclusion I could then try to work them into some sort of summary that will hopefully satisfy everybody. IMO I think it would probably be a better approach than the weaselly text we have currently. Gatoclass 13:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm not sure if Applebaum would qualify as a reliable source, since I believe she is a journalist and not an historian. So that leaves Erlikman and the Russian guy. Anyone else you'd like to include Woogie? Gatoclass 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


You did not wait long enough. It was night. I was sleeping. Your entry was lame and improper and you took advantage of the fact that I was not around after I SPECIFICALLY refrained from doing anything similar largely because you were not around.

As to your proposed compromise, I don't know. Maybe. I still do not accept 8 million. It is way too low. The idea is closer to what I am willing to accept however so maybe. Let me continue my research.

I admit to being very confused on where woogie stands on this. I THINK he would prefer a more detailed and nuanced entry.--JohnFlaherty 13:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I want Robert Conquest and Brzezinski included at the very least.--JohnFlaherty 13:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Get real! Applebaum's book is first rate history, her analysis towers over Wheatcroft. please read pages 578-86--Woogie10w 13:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the book Woogie but she's a journalist not an historian. She has also been accused of being a serial Russophobe, and of just rehashing the research of others. She's published by Random House, which is not AFAIK an academic publisher.
Having said that, I've checked Wiki's reliable sources page and it appears journalists aren't necessarily excluded. I'd prefer an historian though. Leaving aside Applebaum for the moment, who else would you like to nominate? Gatoclass 15:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Applebaum is an historian as well as a journalist. You can't exclude her analysis, I urge others to read pages 578-86 of her book and post their opinions.--Woogie10w 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't propose "excluding" her. I'd just like a couple of additional recommendations, that's all. Who else do you think might be worth inclusion? Gatoclass 16:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to list the facts without any weasel words and BS, clearly citing verifiable sources. Example 1- " Official Soviet sources list 2.7 million repression deaths" and cite Ann Applebaums book Gulag Page 583. Example 2- The official statistics are not accepted as the final word on the subject because the following deaths are excluded: A. Summary Executions, B. Deportation deaths, C. Deaths in transit to the Gulag, D. Persons released from the Gulag on the verge of death due to the harsh conditions E. Famine deaths in 1933. Cite the Pulitzer Prize winning author Ann Applebaum's book Gulag pages 578-586, her book is highly acclaimed and easy to obtain. Example 3 - Mention the controversy regarding the statistics and have a link to the the articles which is now Nr 10 in the Stalin article. The current Death Toll section is a blast of nonsense, doubletalk, weasel words and BS.
Okay, but you still haven't provided me with any recommendations, apart from Applebaum. I may not be able to fit them all in anyhow, and I may include some other sources instead, but I'd at least like to have a couple of recommendations from you. If you're not going to give me any, I will just have to substitute some of my own. Gatoclass 17:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not substituting anything without approval. We are going for consensus here. You have tried twice to change the entry without an agreement. Don't try a third. No one else here has done that. We are trying to reach an agreement.

Any proposed entry you make should include sources suggested by others, not just who you aprove of (ie; Robert Conquest and Brzezinski at a minimum for my case). Your ability to decide who are the best sources has not shown to be to reliable (from my research on Applebaum for one, it is clear she is an extremely credible source who has been widely recognized). In addition, as a practical matter, Woogie is the most qualified individual involved in this discussion to make decisions on these issues. Researching casualty demographic and statistical information is his forte and he has already been recognized inside Wikipedia for that talent.--JohnFlaherty 10:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Applebaum's book is easy to obtain and she is a credible source that that can be verified. The articles on the web by Wheatcroft( assuming that the link remains online) are forest that the average reader will easily get lost in. In any case the facts are clear 1- The official data lists 2.7 million dead(800,000 executions & 1.9 million prison/Gulg) 2- This data is regarded as not being complete because it omits summary executions, deportations, deaths of foriegn nationals, deaths in transit to the Gulags, deaths of imnates released early on the verge of death and Gulag deaths from 1922-29. 3-The demographic loss in the famine year 1933 was 7 million per Andreev's study published by the Russian Academy of Science in 1993. 4- Furthur resarch in the Soviet Archives is necesary to clarify these issues--Woogie10w 10:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You're not substituting anything without approval.
Hey, buddy this is my rewrite. I will include what I think appropriate. If you don't like it, you are free to alter it according to standard Wiki rules. Otherwise, I suggest you at least try to suspend judgement until you've actually seen it, okay?
As far as your charges are concerned, I've done nothing that does not conform to Wiki rules. I concede I overlooked your offer to refrain from editing when I made my last edit, but then, I never agreed to any deal with you, and it's a little presumptious of you to suppose I did. But as you can see, I have refrained from further editing myself since your last protest, so I don't think you can claim I have not respected your position.
Apart from which, I've been working for consensus on this page much harder, and much longer than you have, as anyone who cares to read through the archives can testify.
As for Conquest and Brzezinski, I will probably include them in order to accomodate your preference, but I simply can't say for sure who is best included until I have a range of sources to look at. Don't forget that this article is already quite long and there is limited space available. I've asked Woogie several times for some additional choices, but he continues to cite Applebaum as his only choice. I've never said I wouldn't include Applebaum, and I probably will, but I'd like to have a few more sources than just Wheatcroft, Conquest, Brzezinski and Applebaum to work from. Is that so unreasonable?
And I certainly agree with you that Woogie has better access to resources than either you or I. I just seem to having trouble getting him to share some of his knowledge. I have asked him several times for a list of credible sources, but he keeps repeating Applebaum, and I don't think that Applebaum alone or with just a couple of other sources is much of a range of opinion.
Woogie, you've mentioned Applebaum, Erlikman and Andreev. Let's suppose they are three of your recommendations. Could you give me maybe another two or three others, to round out the picture a little, preferably of people who have worked closely from the archival records and who have given a detailed breakdown of losses in all categories? That would be great if you could do that. I'd really like to try and get moving on this little project over the next day or two, before interest and opportunity declines once again. Gatoclass 11:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Just list the facts and cite verifiable sources, whats the problem?--Woogie10w 11:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't "Buddy" me. You try pushing ridiculous low numbers in "your" re-write and I'll add my own. I do not surrender my perogative to your claim to be the one who re-writes the entry. We all will agree on whatever changes are to be made or I'll revert back to what is up now until we do. I am anxious to see "your" re-write and assume nothing at this point, I am just stating my position.

As to the rest, nothing you have done has convinced me you were the least bit interested in consensus until it was clear you were in the minority and that you were not going to be able to bully your way into your version of the facts. And as far as presumption goes, the only one I saw who made any presmptions was you. This whole dialogue was started by me in an attempt to stop a revert war.

--JohnFlaherty 12:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just list the facts and cite verifiable sources, whats the problem?
The problem is that I've asked you half a dozen times to help me compile those very facts along with verifiable sources, and this is the sort of response I continually get. Okay, it seems pretty clear I'm not going to get any assistance from you. Thanks for nothing Woogie. I hope you enjoy life with your 5000 book library.
I plan to go go to the gym and give the target a few solid Roundhouse kicks, meanwhile why don't you take a hike down to Collin's Bookshop and purchase a copy of Ann Applebaum's Gulag.--Woogie10w 14:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not surrender my perogative to your claim to be the one who re-writes the entry.
Look, if you want to go ahead and do a rewrite, you're welcome to it. There's nothing to stop you. I just volunteered to do it in a random burst of enthusiasm, but since it appears that Woogie, in spite of his many offers to assist, is congenitally incapable of providing any, I'm having second thoughts about my offer. Maybe you and Woogie can get together to come up with something instead. If so, best of luck to you both. Gatoclass 13:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop pouting. You've missed my point. I said I was anxious to see what you were coming up with. I have tried to reach out on this several times and keep getting slapped. I ASKED you for what you thought it should read, remember? I also said that while I reject your fiqures of 8 million as insultingly low, your proposed entry was moving in the right direction.

You know what my issue is. The average of most historical accounts is thirty million. The POSSIBLE range is 5-50 million+. The consensus on this issue is twenty million. According to Woogie's statement earlier in this discussion, "The facts regarding excess deaths during the Stalin era are...(including, Gulag, Deportations, Collectivization, famine, and the Revolution)" at least 18 million. That does NOT include many other categories. I have cited seventeen sources that estimate 20-50 million (ten of which say 20 million).

That is where we stand.

--JohnFlaherty 13:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we see details on what the numbers you propose to post and how you back them up?--JohnFlaherty 13:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there an issue here pertaining to Applebaum's credibility or research? I have my own copy of Gulag, if any claims need verified. --TJive 14:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tjive.

The issue is about writing into the Stalin entry a more accurate range of deaths associated with his regime, and especially citing the number 20 million which is the consensus fiqure by historians and published researchers. Applebaum's numbers, as illustrated by Woogie's posts, come in at 18 million MINIMUM (even excluding some souces). That is very close to the 20 million claimed by the "Black Book of Communism" as well as Robert Conquest, Brzezinski, and slew of others. --JohnFlaherty 15:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the details of the number Gato wants to post and if he can back it up.
The data that can be confirmed in Applebaum is as follows 800,000 executions, 1.9 million Gulag-prison deaths and 6-7 million excess deaths in 1933 during the famine.

Erlikman gives an estimate of additional deaths that are: Summary Executions 700,000; Deportations 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; deaths in Gulag from 1922-29 700,000: additional deaths in Gulag not counted in official statistics 2.4 million, deaths of POWs and Germnan civilians 1 million, add the 2 million dead in the Revolution and you come up to 18 million which is darned close to the 20 million cited in the Black Book of Communism --Woogie10w 15:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose we make the entry read something very close to what you just wrote Woogie. Citing the refernces as well and mentioning Robert Conquest, Brzezinski and others as well.--JohnFlaherty 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I said I was anxious to see what you were coming up with.
Okay, maybe I should explain what I propose to do at this point. After much thought, it seems to me that there is no way to throw multiple sources at the reader which is not just going to be very confusing. So I figure the best way to present the information is with a table, with the various sources listed in consecutive columns and the various categories of victim as the rows. That way one can cover a wide range of different sources in a way that is transparent and easily understood.
The table will be accompanied with some text explaining the reasons for the differences in estimates. I've given it quite a bit of thought, and my feeling is that this is going to be the best way to cover this subject. After all, nobody can complain that one source is being given undue emphasis over another when they are all simply presented in a table format.
As for your question regarding what number if any gets emphasis, I think if I settle on one it will probably be "20 million or less". This is because I think emphasis should be given on the latest research that is more firmly based on the archival record, and because quite frankly I know of no researchers who have examined the archives who claim a figure of higher than 20 million. The archival researchers I have most familiarity with (and admittedly that doesn't amount to much) are Wheatcroft/Davies, Erlikman and Applebaum (thanks to Woogie) and Conquest, and 3 of those four have estimated the figure at 16 million or less while one has estimated 20 million.
Personally, I'd prefer "16 million or less" but I'm prepared to go with 20 million as the stated figure for the sake of consensus, and, in fairness, because Conquest does claim support for the 20 million figure from the archives.
Now I hope that's a proposal that can meet with everyone's approval, if not you can go ahead with what you want to do and I will go ahead with mine and we can come to a conclusion later about which turned out to be the more acceptable approach.
As for Woogie, I was probably a little unfair to him earlier as he has provided us with Applebaum and Erlikman, but I do find it quite frustrating when people give elliptical replies to what appear to me to be straightforward questions. Perhaps he was concerned that I was trying to fit too much into the text, but Woogie, if you are reading this, I think if the info is presented in a table format we can fit in more estimates than from just one or two people, which is why I requested a few more. I'd still be happy to have some extra names with estimates and breakdowns, but if for whatever reason you are unable to provide them, I think there is probably enough info in this here talk archive and the various references for me to come up with a reasonably comprehensive table already.
Oh, and I expect to get hold of Applebaum's book in a day or two, along with a couple of others, which hopefully will help. It will take me a few days to put all this together I think. If you want to work on something else in the meantime, obviously that is up to you. Regards, Gatoclass 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A table is an intriquing idea. I would like to see it.

I would be more inclined to agree with you on some points if I did not see what I can only assume is serial dishonesty. You keep refering to numbers and positions that are just not true. For instance, you keep cherry picking your sources and misrepresenting what is being said here and what others say to get a 16 million or less fiqure. There is no way I will accept that. It is 20 million or higher. You claim that out of Wheatcroft/Davies, Erlikman and Applebaum and Conquest four claim 16 million or less and one claims 20 million. That is a lie. As presented by Woogie, here in this discussion more than once, Applebaum claims AT LEAST 18 million (not 16 or less) and Conquest says 20 million is a very low number.

In addition, you CONTINUE to ignore a slew of other sources that all say 20 million or more and refute them with ONE source - Wheatcroft.--JohnFlaherty 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm wrong about Applebaum. I think it was Erlikman who said 16 million.
But if Applebaum says 18 million that is still less than 20 million. It's still three out of four of the archival researchers who say less than 20 million. Also, Conquest no longer says 20 million is the low. He said in his original edition that the figure was between 20 and 30 million. But in the revised edition, he was (quoting White) "much more confident" that the correct figure was 20 million.
You've accused me of not compromising but I think I've been very fair John. I disagreed with your "consensus" figure of 20 million and offered a range of 8 to 16 million instead. You said that wasn't acceptable so I proposed a range of 8 to 20. You said that still wasn't good enough. So now I've offered "20 million or less" It seems to me I'm the one who has done *all* the compromising so far, you still appear to be insisting on your original "20 million, my way or the highway".
I honestly think it's time for you to bend a little here John. You've got your preferred figure, now all I'm asking for is a nudge in my preferred direction to go with it. And it's not as though the researchers that Woogie has nominated, or that we know most about, have not confirmed that nudge.
And one more thing. I recognize that when I first spoke to you on this page, I came across as a little overbearing. That wasn't my intention, it was late and I was tired and when I'm tired I tend to be more blunt than I usually am. And admittedly, I may not be the most tactful person at the best of times.
But since then, you have continuously accused me of bad faith in post after post. Now while it's true I've responded in kind on one or two occasions, for the most part I've refrained from doing so but you have kept up your barrage of invective all the same. I'm not asking for an apology John, because I recognize that I am probably responsible for initiating the ill-feeling, albeit inadvertently. But I would appreciate it if from this point you would at least try to pay a little more attention to the rules regarding good faith, and stop accusing me of lying, dishonesty and so on. I'm a reasonably patient person but I do have limits. And I don't believe I'm quite the ogre you appear to view me as. Gatoclass 20:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, not for nothing, but you sorta did it again! Applebaum says AT LEAST 18 million. Not 18 million firm. How can I NOT assume bad faith on your part? You JUST did what you claimed to not do.

I said I was intriqued by your idea. I cannot bend until I see what you propose to write. In addition, with all due respect it is my very firm posiion that you are the one who NEEDS to be bending more than I. The majority of evidence is on MY side.

How many sources can you provide to support your fiqures? Woogie asked you at least twice now to pony up. To "lay your cards on the table" as it were.

I'll try and "fight nicer" but I am very firm in my position because I have seen nothing to persuade me it is incorrect.--JohnFlaherty 21:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said John, I don't have a copy of Applebaum's book. If Woogie said "at least 18 million" somewhere, I must have missed it, which wouldn't be suprising because I haven't been reading his posts about Applebaum very closely as I wasn't convinced she was a reliable source. But I had the impression that Applebaum had given the same figure as Erlikman. Perhaps I got confused between the two. But how you could imagine I am acting in "bad faith" when I've been quite open and upfront about my proposals, I really can't imagine.
And I simply don't agree that the majority of the evidence is "on your side". If you're taking White as your sample, there are just as many estimates below 20 million as there are above, so I could just as well claim a consensus for under 20 million as you could claim for "over".
You talk about me failing to compromise but in fact you have done the opposite. You began with a proposal for a consensus figure of 20 million, which I objected to. I have gradually given ground until I've conceded 20 million, albeit as the upper figure of the likely figure. And what have you done in response? You have upped the ante by insisting the actual figure is higher than 20 million! Is that your idea of compromise? It seems a very odd one to me.
Anyhow, even if Applebaum says "at least 18 million", there are still three out of four archival researchers who say "20 million or less". So it still seems to me my proposed compromise figure is more than reasonable. Gatoclass 21:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)And I simply don't agree that the majority of the evidence is "on your side".

)

AARRGGHH!!!!

You can't imagine??? You just did it AGAIN!

That is NOT TRUE. The majority of sources on his site claim OVER 20 million. Man alive! We went THROUGH this already.

And you are, also, AGAIN, misrepresenting me!

I am NOT saying more than 20 million. Not at all. I belive it IS 20 million based on the preponderance of evidence.--JohnFlaherty 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm probably going to hit the hay shortly so I can't continue this discussion much longer. In regards to your claim that Applebaum says "at least 18 million", I've just done a search of this page and nowhere does Woogie cite that as a number from Applebaum. In fact as far as I can see, he doesn't cite Applebaum's numbers anywhere at all, just Erlikman's. So it appears you are the one who is confused about that and not me. But please note that I'm not accusing you of "bad faith" for apparently getting that wrong.
Okay, so you believe the figure is 20 million. Based on the evidence I have seen, I'm inclined to the view that it is probably lower. So what is wrong with "20 million or lower"? It encompasses both our views, doesn't it?
And although I no longer have the figures in front of me, I went through White's site the other night and I'm pretty sure there are as many if not more estimates that fit the definition of "20 million or lower".
But I've run out of time to continue this discussion today. I'll have to come back to it later. Gatoclass 21:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's cool...me to. TBC on the morrow.

Night.--JohnFlaherty 22:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The official statistics from the Soviet Archives that can be confirmed in Applebaum are as follows 800,000 executions, 1.9 million Gulag-prison deaths from 1930-53 and 6-7 million excess deaths in 1933 during the famine. She feels that this data is incomplete and does not accept it as being the final word on the subject
Erlikman gives his estimates of deaths that are: Executions 1,500,000; Deportations 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; deaths in Gulag from 1922-29 700,000; deaths in Gulag from 1930-53 4.3 million, 7 million famine deaths in 1933, deaths of POWs and German civilians 1 million, add the 2 million dead in the Revolution and you come up to 18 million which is darned close to the 20 million cited in the Black Book of Communism --Woogie10w 02:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Darned close - okay. But it's still less than 20 million, isn't it? And therefore it conforms fully with the description "20 million or less". Especially given, as I've already pointed out, that deaths in the Revolution are irrelevant to the article, which is about deaths that occurred during Stalin's rule. So Erlikman's figure is really 16 million.

I don't know if you read what I had to say above Woogie, but it occurs to me that you have been reluctant to provide additional researchers because you felt that more might overwhelm the text. Now that I've expressed my intention to construct a table with multiple sources, does that encourage you to contribute more sources? If not, I probably have enough information already to construct a table, but obviously additional data would be more than welcome. Gatoclass 07:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article by Michael Ellman "Soviet Repression Statistics:Some Comments" (See link Nr.10 in the Stalin article) will be helpful in understanding the problems relating to the official Soviet repression statistics.
Erlikman's book is a compliation of statistcs on war casualties, government repression and natural disasters in the 20th century. He cites his sources and has detailed footnotes, the sources include many Russian and Soviet writers. I have summarized his data on an Excel spreadsheet and would be glad to provide a download.--Woogie10w 09:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. Will it be possible to embed your spreadsheet into the article?
I have just finished a rough draft of a spiel that I think covers most of the ground we have been discussing over the last few weeks. I think it gives a fair shake to most of the different POV's. What I have to do now is go through and add the references, and when I've done that I'm going to post it to the article. I hope to have it up sometime today or tomorrow.
I'm having second thoughts about the table, at least for now. It will obviously take me quite a while to put one together and there will stil be quite a few gaps in it. I think in the longer term a table would probably be a good idea but for now, I'd just like to get rid of that highly unsatisfactory edit which concludes with the "five to fifty million" figure which is so broad as to be almost totally meaningless.
BTW I'm not quite sure what you are talking about in regards to "link no. 10 in the Stalin article". Are you talking about the series of articles in the Slav review link? If so I can probably embed that in the article too. The more refs we have, obviously the better. Gatoclass 12:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just do me a favor and put it up here on the discussion pages so we can all see it.--JohnFlaherty 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to do that John. I don't want to have the thing nitpicked to pieces before it even gets to the article. Wiki's |Be Bold! policy is there for a reason, without it nothing on Wiki would ever get done.
You will have every opportunity to alter it or discuss it after I've posted it. But if you're going to make changes, I ask you not to make changes just for the sake of it, but only if you have a real and concrete objection to something that is said.
I don't think you'll find it too objectionable though. I've made further concessions to your position that I trust will meet with your approval. If not, we can have a debate about it here, but I really think it's time that lame "five to fifty million" thing was replaced, we can haggle over the exact wording later if you're still so inclined. Gatoclass 12:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, in order to avoid further argument, I'll post the concluding paragraph here first. Here it is:
While the true number of Stalin's victims therefore still cannot be stated with any certainty, a figure of substantially less than 10 million seems unlikely, with more recent research indicating a figure of somewhere between 15 and 20 million. It should be noted however, that some researchers[5] continue to maintain that their much higher earlier estimates are correct.
You'll note that I've now put an absolute floor of 10 million on the figure, and proposed a likely figure of between 15 and 20 million. This basically covers the estimates given by Conquest and Erlikman (and, I think, Applebaum), with a nod to Wheatcroft. It also emphasizes that not all researchers agree with these figures.
What I'm really trying to get away from is the absurd "five to fifty million" summary and narrow it down to a more probable range.
My main concern right now is that my proposed entry is longer than I'd like it to be, but it's darned hard to say anything meaningful about this complicated topic in more than a few words. Anyhow, would you and Woogie please get back to me quickly on how you feel about this as a conclusion. Gatoclass 13:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: The above conclusion is gone, I had to rewrite my proposed edit because it was too long. I'm inclined to think this subject could use a separate article. There are just too many ifs and buts to be crammed into an already long article. I have managed to trim my proposed edit down to an acceptable size but I had to cut a few corners to do so. Unfortunately, now I've got to go and do all the refs again :/ Gatoclass 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not mix

Please do not mix the political victims with excess mortality and other demographic figures. And also I ask you not to use such strange term as "death toll" of Stalin. It can be applied to a disater or epidemy, but not to politician.--Nixer 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My proposed rewrite gives a detailed breakdown of categories of victim, I only posted the summary.
The section is entitled "Death Toll". If you think this is inappropriate, what would you suggest as an alternative? Gatoclass 14:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The section should be named "political victims" or "excess mortality" or whatever depending on the contents of the article.--Nixer 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One argument at a time please. We will handle "death toll" in order, after we deal with this and one other issue.

I don't likle your tone or attitude on deciding to simply post it without our agreement.

However, I must admit that I think your entry is...uhmm...fair. It is starting to grow on me. Good job so far I think. How about you woogie?--JohnFlaherty 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to change that conclusion because my edit was too long - see my note above. I've got a new conclusion now. But I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to rewrite it still further. Gatoclass 14:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You change it AFTER I manage a "good job" and after I see a real possibility at an agreement??--JohnFlaherty 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, before. Now I'm working on the refs. The conclusion is essentially the same as that above, I just had to cut a few corners to get the whole thing down to an acceptable size. Wheatcroft no longer gets a mention except in the refs. Gatoclass 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm posting it now. It's pretty much done I think, apart from a couple more references I will add later. I think it deals with the subject pretty fairly John. If you don't like it, then of course it's your prerogative to change it. But I ask you not to go changing things just to prove a point, but only if you have a real and concrete objection to something that it is in it. I've tried to be very fair to all parties, and I've now laid most of the emphasis on Woogie's preferred source of Erlikman and on Conquest. Wheatcroft now only gets a mention in the refs, so I don't think you can argue I've tried to push my own preferred source. In retrospect I have my doubts about Wheatcroft's estimate anyhow. Hope it meets with everyone's approval. If not, well at least I gave it a go. Gatoclass 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a job well done--Woogie10w 16:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks very much Woogie! I do appreciate that :)
I just left a message on your talk page BTW. Gatoclass 17:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I must agree. Excellent job Gatoglass. Except for two numbers. 18 million (instead of 15-17 - see the comments/estimates from woogie earlier) and 15-20 million from Gatoglasses own proposed changes above.--JohnFlaherty 18:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't do this Gato. Don't start another revert war. We were all suppossed to agree on the numbers. Your entry is very good and 90% there but those numbers are still heding to the low side and that is not what we discussed.

You said yourself that we could edit whatever you put up if we disagreed. --JohnFlaherty 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the 15-17 million vs 18 million is not important enough for us to quibble over, but the range should be 15-20 million, not 10-20 million.--JohnFlaherty 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John. I took the numbers directly from Woogie's post, excluding the 2 million deaths occurring during the Russian Revolution, which are not attributable to Stalin. The 15-17 million variation depends on whose figures you use for the famine, since Woogie didn't post a figure from Erlikman for that. In any case I think it helps not to have the article relying too much on Erlikman.
Unfortunately I couldn't think of a way to fit the "15 to 20 million" phrase in the rewrite without the edit becoming longer and more confusing. So I basically compressed my original paragraph and removed Wheatcroft entirely from the picture. Now he only exists as a reference to the 10 million figure.
I think that is more than fair, and the way the piece is written emphasis now falls on the estimates of Erlikman and Conquest, so that while not actually openly endorsing these figures, it quietly suggests to the reader that these are the more credible figures.
Apart from which, I will probably do a revision or two over the next few days if I get time to try and tidy up the loose ends a bit. Gatoclass 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am being more than fair. I backed off the low range of 15-17 million (vs 18 million)

I'll leave it for now. I have to go out and I do not want another revert war and out of respect for the rather good job you did I'll back off for now but I do not agree with that range and this is not quite over.--JohnFlaherty 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) == Number of victims ==

I like that compromise.--JohnFlaherty 19:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Excess deaths

Ultramarine, these are excess deaths. If demography says it was not more than 1,5 million excess deaths (for various causes) how do you derive 6 million for the famine only?--Nixer 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That table is only registered deaths. Also, the total number of those deaths is 2.2, not 1.5.Ultramarine 20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This comes from the same webpage: [58] Ultramarine 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, I don't have time to challenge all your edits right now, or to alter them to make them more acceptable to the body of the text. But let me just point out that the content of your edits amount to very little in the overall context of the topic. So, let's assume you are correct that most of the Gulag prisoners died "fighting at the front". Did they volunteer to go? Or were they put into punishment battalions to carry out suicide missions? If the latter, then the question of exactly how they died is moot, since they can still be counted as victims of Stalin.

As for "only 50,000 being rehabilitated", who cares? The issue is how many men died from atrocious conditions in the camps, "guilty" or not. Gatoclass 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Source please.Ultramarine 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You're asking Nixer and not me, I take it? I've removed the ref. to the 50,000 again. I don't see that it has any relevance whatever to the death toll in the Gulags. Gatoclass 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. Just so someone does not miss it, since the table of registered deaths is endlessly linked to, this comes from exactly the same webpage: [59]Ultramarine 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for digging up that link again. I couldn't find it before and I wanted to put it into the rewrite. I'll probably do that tomorrow now. Gatoclass 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Erlikman as a source

May I give a humble advice do not use the work of the gentleman as a source. He is a journalist not an historian (although in his youth he indeed studied history in Istoriko-Arhivny Institut). What I mean there is no such scholar as "Russian historian Erlikhman". This name is unknown in academic circles :) Here you are his works (in Russian) - http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2283471/?type=305#305 You see among them such works as "Stephen King. The king of dark side", "Anthology of children world literature", "Anthology of world fantasy" etc.

Oh, great :) Since I rewrote that section, I've stumbled on one or two other apparent discrepancies I will have to try and resolve.
Actually though, if Erlikman is a journalist and not an historian it doesn't necessarily disqualify him as a source. Although obviously it would be better to have a historian instead. Gatoclass 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean that he is not a researcher he is an ordinary compiler. It's not bad thing whatsoever but (and I agree with you) that it would be better to use books of real historian-researchers who works with archives and other primary sources. --Nekto 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree but we have something of a shortage of researchers who give a full breakdown of their figures. I'm going to be picking up a few books on the subject over the next couple of days so hopefully I'll have a little more to work with. Until then Erlikman is going to have to fill the bill. He does at least have the advantage of quoting figures that don't lean too far in either direction. Regards, Gatoclass 22:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Deliberate misrepresentation of sources

I have stayed out of this debate for the most part and have not been following it closely, but I can hardly stand idly while bad sources are touted as having particular relevance on this matter.

Namely, that J. Arch Getty, et al, are cited as having made "higher estimates" "more difficult to sustain". Rather, Getty has always represented the very lowest trend of victim estimates and since the fall of the Soviet Union has been forced to revise his estimates upwards, but he still portrays the Great Purge as mainly an instance of cannibalism among the party leadership rather than a general terror inflicted on the population at large (as seen by the very title of his recent work on the subject, Stalin: The Road to Terror and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks. [My emphasis.]

Meanwhile, this likely copyright violation is being hosted on an avowedly Stalinist page whose host's main claim to fame is storage of the Maoist Internationalist Movement archive, which hosts similar, albeit much more crude, tracts of Stalinist apologia such as those of Ludo Martens.

The section, needles to say, still needs work. --TJive 00:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have misread the section TJive. It does not say that "J Arch Getty" has made higher estimates more difficult to sustain. It says that the Russian archives have made the higher estimates more difficult to sustain. The Getty article is only sourced there because it refers to the figures in those archives.
And who cares whether a reference is hosted on an "avowedly Stalinist" page? Do communists not have a point of view too?
Just because you don't happen to like Getty's analysis does not mean it shouldn't be in the section. He's a Professor of History, that makes him a reliable source according to Wiki guidelines. And I've taken the trouble to put heaps of other references in there. That little section now has practically more refs than the rest of the article combined. Gatoclass 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I am not an idiot. It might serve you well not to speak to me as if I were.

When an article reads that, "higher estimates became more difficult to sustain" and leads into an "example" which links to a specific article with specific numbers, the clear (and intended) implication is that this article represents an instance or the instance of the event described, i.e. that "higher estimates became more difficult to sustain". That is clearly not the case, as other estimates (those revised from earlier work and not) have come up with greater numbers than Getty, who has consistently put out the lowest numbers accepted by anyone other than Stalinist hacks.

As for "who cares", anyone who has a lick of intellectual credibility, not to mention the remotest sense of responsibility in sorting out legitimate data pertaining to the murder of a great deal of human beings should have the capacity to differentiate from sources which speak on such a matter credibly as opposed to braying the party line in defiance of reason and the barest human decency. This is not to stain Getty and his cohorts with the petty Stalinism of the site in question, but it is rather revealing if you don't happen to "care" about what sort of site you are linking to in the very explicit context of political murder by Stalin.

Furthermore, I did not call for the removal of references to Getty but rather a modification of his treatment in the article. However, as I mentioned earlier, it may well be that this is a copyright violation and should not be linked to in this fashion. I don't see that the details of publication are even anywhere mentioned by this web site, which is not true even of the site's other instances of copying work from other publications such as The Guardian and a book. [60] That should send up a flag right there, if the crass indifference to misery does not. --TJive 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I am not an idiot. It might serve you well not to speak to me as if I were.
You can talk. As if implying that I lack "a lick of credibility" or "the remotest sense of responsibility" not to mention a "crass indifference to misery" were an indication of your good manners.
You've got quite a nerve, buddy, to speak to a fellow Wikipedian in those terms.
As for your accusation, I'm not responsible for offences that others choose to read into my words. I made a simple observation - that you appear to have misread the paragraph. Now if you choose to misinterpret that as speaking to you as if you were an idiot, I really think that's your problem, not mine.
When an article reads that, "higher estimates became more difficult to sustain" and leads into an "example" which links to a specific article with specific numbers, the clear (and intended) implication is that this article represents an instance or the instance of the event described, i.e. that "higher estimates became more difficult to sustain". That is clearly not the case, as other estimates (those revised from earlier work and not) have come up with greater numbers than Getty, who has consistently put out the lowest numbers accepted by anyone other than Stalinist hacks.
Very well, I hadn't considered that interpretation but if that's the way you read it, I'll remove that particular link. Perhaps I can find another place for it. Admittedly it was a pretty tenuous linkage anyway. I'll see if I can find something more appropriate. Unfortunately we are suffering from something of a dearth of good links to fill out this section, I've done as best I can with what was available. Gatoclass 02:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Though one might read in my response a bit of opprobrious excess, I most certainly did not intend to state that you qualified as the former two and the latter description was in context to the web site, not an editor in the abstract.
As for edits, I support the removal but believe the wording still needs work. I don't choose to interfere at this point as I believe the matter might be taken up by other editors. --TJive 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
"Opprobrious excess" - I imagine you're quite good at that. Which hand do you prefer? Just kidding.
I'll take your word for it though that you intended no offence. I'm quite sure I didn't. As for "the matter being taken up by other editors" I have to kind of wonder where the heck they've all been for the last few weeks. Me and Woogie and a couple of others have practically been playing a lone hand here, and now when I finally make the effort to put something together, suddenly everyone's all over it like white on rice. That's life I guess.
You clearly have a facility with language, so if you think you can do better, and you probably can, I can't stop you. I did kind of hope my little effort would stay extant for a couple of days at least, but if not, c'est la vie. I really only put up my hand in the absence of other users. I suppose I can always congratulate myself for creating enough interest to get the thing fixed, can't I? Gatoclass 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Those persons who wish to exclude Erlikman as a source cannot deny that there unrecorded deaths due to summary executions, deportations, deaths in transit to the Gulag, Gulag deaths from 1922-9, premature deaths of inmates released on the verge of death and the killings of German civilians in 1945. The fact of the matter is that many deaths went unrecorded in the official statistics and this can be confirmed by Michael Ellman and Ann Applebauum. The estimate by Robert Conquest of 20 million excess deaths in the Stalin era includes those deaths not officialy recorded and should be cited in the article.--Woogie10w 10:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
There was no GULAG in 1922-29. GULAG was established in 1930. The prison system prior to GULAG had no that many inmates - for example in 1922 there were 80,559 prisoners and in 1923 — 79,947 ones. Source: System of corrective labor camps in USSR (in Russian) --Nekto 11:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:The bottom line is that while Gatoglass did a good job, the whole section still leans towards crediting the lower numbers and implying that the higher numbers are not credible.--JohnFlaherty 12:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Our article on the Gulag points out that there were forced labor camps in the USSR from 1922-29.--Woogie10w 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No, before GULAG (i.e. before 1930) those camps were of absolutelly another nature. They were not forced labor camps but "corrective" camps (however prisoners did work to cover their's maintenance costs). Up to 1930 prisoners were not considered as cheap labor. Only in the period of rapid industrialisation the state started to use prisoners intensivelly. --Nekto 16:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is incorrect. See the very well-referenced books by Richard Pipes about the Russian revolution. Or this online summary: [61]Ultramarine 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid mr. Pipes mixed up different periods. What "arctic canals" that were digged by inmates he talked about? I rely on the modern and well documented work "System of corrective labor camps in USSR" that I mentioned above in Russian It was writen with aid of The International MEMORIAL Society --Nekto 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Pipes cites thousands of sources for his books, almost all Russian. The Black Book of Communism makes similar statements. There is a myth that Lenin did not advocate terror. For example, in 1918 Lenin sent out an infamous hanging order. As documented in material available at the Library of Congress [62][63][64]:
11-8-18. Send to Comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists: Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the kulaks." We need to set an example. 1) You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. 2) Publish their names. 3) Take away all of their grain. 4) Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram. This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this. Yours, Lenin. P.S. Use your toughest people for this.Ultramarine 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that Lenin's support of terror during the Russian Civil War has a little (or nothing) to do with forced labor camps we are talked about. I know about the telegram. By the way there is a mistake in translation - "Execute the hostages". Actually it is "Designate hostages" (Назначить заложников in original). But that's nitpiking. --Nekto 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nekto are you referring to the jail the Webb’s visited after they had tea with Yezhov?--Woogie10w 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that while Gatoglass did a good job, the whole section still leans towards crediting the lower numbers and implying that the higher numbers are not credible.--JohnFlaherty

With all due respect, John, I don't think the high numbers are very credible. Most of them, AFAIK, come from earlier estimations that relied on anecdotal and literary material. Others are compilations from secondary sources.

And most if not all those who posit higher numbers are not experts in the field. I don't know of any specialist in the subject that has posited a figure of above 20 million. Wheatcroft and Getty both say about 10 million; Conquest says 20. That seems to be the range pretty much agreed upon by the experts.

In any case I don't specifically say the higher numbers are wrong - I've just laid emphasis on the 10 to 20 million range, and used Erlikman to sketch out an approximate midpoint. The references are all there, and the reader is still left to judge for himself which figures he prefers.

All the same I'm planning to bone up on this subject a little more over the next couple of weeks. If I come across any information that causes me to change my mind about the likely range, I will certainly be willing to consider further changes to the text. Gatoclass 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are, yet again, cherry picking the sources you prefer to support your position. Twenty million is the consensus fiqure, or at least 15-20 million. By listing 10 million you are consigning to oblivion almost the same number of souls as perished in the holcaust based on un-credible sources.

Every credible source I have seen, indeed woogie's own highly credible estimates show 15-20 million.

I plan on changing that number to 15 million unless somone can show me where I am wrong.--JohnFlaherty 02:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you do I'll change it back again. If you can give me one good reason why two specialists in the field, Getty and Wheatcroft, do not deserve inclusion of their estimates as examples of the most recent research, then I'll concur with your view. Otherwise I'll consider your edit a breach of NPOV. Gatoclass 02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll consider ME in breach of Wikipedia NPOV? You have some nerve buddy-boy.

You create a revert war over an entry you added without consensus and you will be in violation of Wikipedia's guiedlines. The only one who is NPOV here is you. You do not own this entry but you have been acting like it from word go. You are the only one who made entry changes without consensus. No one else, including me, has made any changes to the entry without agreement. You did that more than once.

I am the one who started this discussion after YOU started a revert war and you claimed you and Woogie did all the heavy lifting.

I never said you could not include their estimates. I said the range is incorrect. If your view is that "the more recent research" is 10-20 million based on the limited sources you brought up then I will add a modifier to the extent that the majority of sources put the bottom of the range around 17 million.

The most credible data I have seen is 18 million. The bottom line is that the fiqure of 20 million IS the consensus fiqure and nothing you have said in the last week changes that. Your entry was a good compromise except that it still leans towards the low end. I agreed to compromise on two areas of what you wrote, including the whole "consensus" point if the range was raised to 15 million. I am not going to allow you to discount 5 million lives. I have plenty of evidence to support higher numbers but am not pushing the issue because the very high ones are as difficult to support as the lower ones are and the ones closer to say 30 million I was willing to give up for consensus.--JohnFlaherty 02:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That will certainly do for now at the very least.--JohnFlaherty 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to all step away from this for a while. The entry is a heck of a lot better now than when we started.--JohnFlaherty 03:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem John. After a quick review of the existing available sources, I decided you are probably justified after all in arguing for the inclusion of a higher base figure - at least until we can get some more solid information. Meanwhile, I'm pleased to see you appear to be satisfied with the current compromise. Thanks for your contribution to the debate, I think overall it's helped to make for a much better entry. Gatoclass 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Link to "Death Toll" page

We never finsihed the second part of the discussion, which was ranking Stalin as the second greatest mass murderer after Mao.

Rather than get all up into that directly, especially so soon after reaching consensus on the current changes and reaching (I had thought - obviously incorrectly) a new level of respect, I did not push to mention that fact. I simply put in a link to another Wikipedia article that discusses the issue in great detail, allowing for many opinions and verdicts, and in perspective. I thought it was a rather benign and appropriate solution to the point of contention.

If you disagree, by all means lets discuss it here, but stop reverting my edits. You have been doing that from the begining. This is a pretty harmless edit (a link) for what I consider an important aspect of Stalin's & Communism's legacies. It does so in an indirect and rather peripheral way - IOW it is a compromise as it is MUCH less than I would LIKE to see from the article but I wanted to avoid too much heat after so much progress. I was in a mood for compromise.

I did not fight one wit on the re-naming of the section from "Death Toll" to the more euphamistic "Number of victims". Words should mean thigs (I am a great fan of George Orwell) and the current header for the section is fairly weasle-like put hey, I am trying to appreciate others viewpoints and not contest every change. This link to the Wikipedia article is much more benign and less complex than addressing the whole issue in this article. It is an important part of why people study Stalin to begin with and a simple link is not to much to ask for IMO.--JohnFlaherty 07:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As you might recall my reasons for removing your reference to Mao in the first place, which is what triggered this whole debate and the subsequent rewrite, is that (a) the Stalin page is not a soapbox for anticommunists to push their anti-commie POV, and (b) the claim that Mao and Stalin are the two greatest mass murderers in history is bogus and unproveable in the first place.
In order to avoid further disruption on this page however, I will accept your link for the time being, at least until I've had more time to consider it. However, since you've pointed out the existence of this "Death Toll" page to me, I now feel obliged to edit that for accuracy, since the figures there are contentious, wrong, and completely unsourced.
I did not fight one wit on the re-naming of the section from "Death Toll" to the more euphamistic "Number of victims".
Actually, if you check the page history, you'll find that I'm the one who tossed the original weaselly "Number of Repressed" for the more straightforward "Death Toll". However, I accepted Nixer's recent criticism of the title for the sake of consensus, and because I think "number of victims" is after all probably more accurate - and less weaselly I think - than "death toll" - which as Nixer suggested, is a passive phrase implying that that no-one was actually responsible. "Number of victims", I think, makes it clearer that there was frequently an active human agency behind these deaths. Gatoclass 08:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being civil. I will try to be civil in my disagreements.

a) This is not about being a “soapbox”. None of the changes I agreed to, which we have made, or that I made with the link are soapboxing in any way, and that includes being a passive or anti-soapbox for covering up historical crimes either. Sins of omission are still sins.

I am not pushing a POV at all. The claims are not bogus in any way. The are as provable as any of the numbers are. They are important to know or to seek to know as much as possible. To deny the search for information of such importantce to human history is unfathomable to me. It is important to know that America killed over 100,000 Indians. It is important to know that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. It is important to know that Stalin killed 15-20 million people. It is also important to know who the worst criminals against humanity were, especially if they share common traits like the ideology of Communism. That is not POV anymore than saying National Socialism was a destructive ideology responsible for 6-10 millions deaths at least.

If, however, you really feel that way you should be over at the “List of wars and disasters by death toll” entry because it’s whole existence is “bogus and un-provable” by your way of thinking.

b) Thank you, and see a) for that very recommendation. I think I will join you. I do not believe they are un-sourced but that does not mean they might not need polishing up. I think that you would be good at that, with the proper supervision.  ;-)

c) I’ll take your word for it. As to the compromise, as I said, it is not worth arguing over. I agree with you that it is an improvement over “Number of repressed”! You make a good argument for victims as well.--JohnFlaherty 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's real father?

In the Soviet Union, there were several rumors that circulated the notion that Stalin was most probably a bastard child to another man. His mother worked as a housekeeper who happend to be a wealthy Armenian and was in fact the real father of Joseph. Wishing to keep such an affair secret, he paid off the woman and distanced himself from her. Later on, this was used to justify Stalin's extreme anger at robbing and killing owners of Armenian stores when he was a street thug and later on when he became dictator, the reason why many Armenians were sent to Gulag camps afterwards (although, millions of Soviet citizens weren't spared such a fate but it persisted that he had special hatred for the Armenians and angst to his unknown father). I'm curious has anyone else heard this theory and if so, is there reasonable grounds to include it in the article?--MarshallBagramyan 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Something scandalous like that would definitely require a notable, verifyable source for inclusion --C33 06:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been printed. I would have to research the sources but it has definitely seen print. DMorpheus 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
They would have to dig Joe up and do a DNA test, the media will go bugs!

Soviet leaders after Stalin did not follow the main principles of his leadership

This statement is "Point of View." Destalinization removed the main features- the "cult of personality," the massive GULAG system, total ban on criticizing society, saturation of stifling bureaucracy, etc. etc.

Gorbachev was quite the opposite, but it is enough to talk about Khrushchev's removal of the above mentioned policies, the end of the GULAG, the decentralization (to some degree) of the economic planning when top managers were sent to regions, a strong decrease in the number of bureaucratic departments (described in a recent news article in ARGUMENTI I FAKTI), the end og the GULAG, a regulated rebirth in freedom in the arts and sciences. See Ehrenburg's famous book THE THAW and movies criticisng bureaucrats/ bureaucracy.

Furthermore, the Communist Party became the only party even in Lenin's time due to the Left SR party's demands for continuing WWI, so this is not a special principle of Stalin's rule that his heirs continued. During Gorbachev's time, multicandidate elections and fractions (such as Yeltsin's) were common. --Rako

anti-Semitism

I never understood the reason for Stalin's ethnic cleansing. The only incentives I could find were colonialism of the less-populated areas, removing perceived radical threats that didn't go well with the state (ie. Islam?), and maybe to create an enemy. But it seems rather counter-intuitive to Machiavellianism to ethnically cleanse if it doesn't gain power.

Perhaps it was the high number of rivals in the Party who happened to be Jewish and it was a convenient label? I mean, in order for ideological soundness it would have seemed wiser to pick another label. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Stalin and anti-Semitism.--Constanz - Talk 08:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My changes

It appears that some error occurred in my viewing of the diffs. For some reason, I was being shown what was effectively the anon's version with the low number summation. I had thought the more egregious problems in sourcing were dealt with several days ago so the wording struck me as being rather terrible. This means that a good portion of my problems appear to have been mistaken. However, other edits and fixes I was dealing with are still needed, so I will hash out the differences (on the article as well as talk), carefully, tomorrow so as not to go over reverts. --TJive 10:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure who is who here, with the anon and the new dispute below, but the version I had seen displayed the end summation that "Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 5 million surplus deaths (3 million by repression and 2.5 million from famine) are attributable to the regime. Adding 2.5 million famine victims to archival reports of repression, for example, would yield a figure of 5 million victims." I am not sure how this happened, but this was primarily what I found to be unacceptable and the reason for the tag. This facet of my changing was in error, as I discovered later, after being stymied by Gatoclass's remark that I was actually de-emphasizing higher estimates, which I inadvertently was in one portion.
Nonetheless there are still problems with the current version, touched upon only slightly by the editor below, who is nonetheless arguing for a rather grotesque rewrite in its place.
Firstly, there are minor formatting and punctuation fixes which should be rather uncontroversial, such as taking out spaces from internal links, and putting external link sources outside of the sentence. Alternatively, the sources should be put in uniform "ref" style so that there is not a horrid mix between the two; this seems to be the preference of this Wikipedia age, so it should not be controversial to do so. In starting these processes (for this section) I was also changing some awkward or conversational prose, such as "But again historians differ, this time" to simply "Historians differ as to". Furthermore, there is no reason for short, broken paragraphs when often the second short one is directly addressing the subject of the first. I was consolidating content, (unbeknownst to me, not very good content), and this should be undertaken again.
As far as content issues are concerned, the editor below is right to contend that pre-Soviet collapse figures are glossed over, but this goes as well for "high" sources as for "low" ones. His solution is to disregard Solzhenitsyn; mine is to clarify that researchers had given "low" accounts previously and that "high" accounts were not all in the 50+ million range. After all, both groups feel that they have been vindicated by recent research on the subject which takes into account archival records (according varying degrees of plausibility to given figures), and in the process some have been reluctantly revised upwards a bit whereas others have brought their estimates down while maintaining a much higher degree of magnitude.
Instead, we have what amounts almost to an aside about Solzhenitsyn and the assertion that (unnamed) estimates "became more difficult to sustain". Which ones, and according to whom? This is not a consensus feeling. There should be an indication that there is ongoing debate over this issue, rather than one editor with preferred sourcing giving weight to one particular researcher. This would be much easier to establish were editors to familiarize themselves with who gives what figures (a lot of them are given at the erols link) rather than simply dealing with names that get tossed around on talk.
Finally, I had taken out the vulgar extext personal site link, which Gatoclass had agreed to earlier but at some point was reinserted anyhow. --TJive 13:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of Victims POV

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

This will be removed because it has been proven to have been discredited. The views of early "researchers" are irrelevant since the opening of the archives. They would give readers the fale indication that there is plausability in the ridiculous death toll of "60 million". Plus, the demographer Frank Lorimer predicted early in the 1940s, long before any archival evidence, that excess deaths in the 1930s were about 4.5 million. If Solzhenitsyn's discredited figures are reported, then the work of a professional demographer undoubtedly has to be and given more emphasis.

Factually correct statement and interesting.Ultramarine 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

the archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation in the Gulags and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.

While this data is overall accurate, the assertion that 1.7 million died of privation in the GULAG is false. The Russian historian V.N Zemskov in 1991 reported that 1 million people had died in the GULAG, established in 1934, until 1953. It should also be noted that the majority of these deaths occurred during 1941-1945 when the the entire USSR was more or less without centralized government. The excess deaths in the GULAG during this period were not at all the fault of the Sovet government. They occurred entirely due to the war brought by the Germans.

That is one view. Others disagree.Ultramarine 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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

These charges are unsubstantiated. As the historian Robert Thurston has correctly stated in "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia", the anti-Stalinist Khrushchev had no reason to have the figures minimized in the reports prepared by Kruglov and Shvernik. There is not any evidence that the Soviets "carelessly recorded" ethnic deportations or German population transfers. They have actually turned out to be accurate. According to the archives, for instance, there were 90 thousand Kalmyks deported in 1944 of which 80 thousand were located in 1946. The assertion that it is "generally agreed that the data are incomplete" is false manifested by how archival data has been presented in countless scholarly works including those of Stephen Wheatcroft, R.W Davies, Robert Thurston, and Mark Harrison.

For example Conquest disagree. Wikipedia should report, not decide which sholar is correct.Ultramarine 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Russian writer Vadim Erlikman[10], for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

While the views of a Russian-Jewish writer should be noted, they must not be given emphasis over concise archival data. Post-1990 estimates are entirely worthless because we have in our midst archival documents the necessity of estimations. 1.5 million executions is unsubstnatiated; the actual number of death sentences during Stalin was under 800 thousand. It cannot be proved that a certain number of executions were carried out with judicial proceedings while others were carried out without such proceedings. The figure of 8 million deportations is also false. Deportations in the course of 1939-1945 amounted to about 1.5 million Polish and west Ukrainians, 1 million Volga Germans, 500 thousand Chechens and Ingush, 200 thousand Crimeans, 100 thousand Meshkhetians and Kurds, 100 thousand Kalmyks, and 40 thousand Balkars. The sum from all these deportations does not exceed 3.5 million. Overall, there were about 400-500 thousand deaths among these deportees of which the vast majority were Polish and Germans. The statement of German civilians and POWs at one million is also overstated. Collectively amongst all prisoners of war taken by the USSR including those of Germany, Japan, Romania, Hungary, and Finland, there were about 520 thousand deaths according to German historian Stefan Karner.

"Jewish"? Again, Wikipedia should report, not decide which sholar is correct.Ultramarine 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

These numbers are by no means the full story of deaths attributable to the regime however, since at least another 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine must be added.

This is yet another inaccurate figure. The cited source of Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies seems to have been deliberately misrepresented. They estimated on page 415 of "Years of Hunger" that there were about 4.5 to 5.5 million excess deaths. 1.5 million of these are unsubstantiated estimates of a famine in Kazakhstan. The USSR archives have shown us that excess deaths in Ukraine, North Caucuses, and Lower Volga amounted to about 2.5 million. Davies and Wheatcroft inflated this figure by putting forth an implausable 1.5 million deaths in Kazakhstan. Therefore, it must be reported that there were 2.3 million documented excess deaths in Ukraine, North Caucuses, and Lower Volga while some historians have estimated an additional 1.5 million in Kazakhstan.

Your view. Again, Wikipedia should report, not decide which sholar is correct.Ultramarine 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime, with a number of recent books suggesting a probable figure of somewhere between 15 to 20 million.

This is yet another misrepresentation of the facts. It has been documented that there were in 2.1 million attributable to "repression" and a documented 2.3 million attributable to famine. These two added together has a sum of 4.5 million which is tune with earlier estimates by the demographers Frank Lorimer, Barbara Anderson, and Eric Silver.

Your view. Again, Wikipedia should report, not decide which sholar is correct.Ultramarine 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pioneering researcher Robert Conquest[13], meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million. Others, however, continue to maintain that their earlier much higher estimates are correct

Robert Conquest's work has been long discredited. To call him a "pioneering researcher" is to take a POV. The pioneering researchers on the USSR have been N.Jasny, N.Timashev, and W.Eason according to historian Stephen Wheatcroft. To cite Rummel, a parrot of Conquest, as a source is an embarrassment to academia. This change has to be drastically altered in order to maintain a balanced point of view. Mikhail Frunze

Your view. Again, Wikipedia should report, not decide which sholar is correct.Ultramarine 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect to assert that this alone is my view. My reports are all supported by scholarly sources that have incessantly reported the figures that I have cited. You say that Wikipedia should "report and not decide" yet the previous version of the "number of victims" section gives an overwhelming amount of emphasis to those that disregard archival data as if to give the connotation that the Russians don't know how to count.Mikhail Frunze

Again, Wikipedia should not decide who is right in scholarly discussion. There is no agreement amongs scholars. Thus, Wikpedia should not state a supposed number as the "true" one.Ultramarine 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You have incessantly issued reminders of Wikipedia's policies, yet the version of the section that you endorse attempts to say that those who disregard archival sources such as Erlikman are correct. There cannot be any serious debate against recorded facts e.g archival material. Mikhail Frunze

All scholars include archival sources. Many agree that they are incomplete. That is valid view and should be included.Ultramarine 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are again incorrect. Robert Conquest, who was given emphasis in earlier versions of the page did not use archival sources. The overwhelming majority of scholars perceive the archival figures to be complete. Mikhail Frunze

Conquest certainly consider the numbers. Most scholars certainly do not agree that the killers faithfully recorded all deaths. Regarding for example the famine, that would have been extremely difficult.Ultramarine 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of victims

"Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range as high as 60 million.[65][4]

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, hard evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available, and many of the earlier, higher estimates became more difficult to sustain. For example, the archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation in the Gulags and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.

Debate continues however[66], since some historians believe the official figures are unreliable.[5] Also, it is generally agreed that the data are incomplete, since some categories of victim were carelessly recorded by the Soviets - such as the victims of ethnic deportations, or of German population transfer in the aftermath of WWII.

Thus, while some archival researchers have posited the number of victims of Stalin's repressions to be no more than about 4 million in total [67][68][69], others believe the number to be considerably higher. Russian writer Vadim Erlikman[6], for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

These numbers are by no means the full story of deaths attributable to the regime however, since at least another 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine must be added.[70][7][8] But again historians differ, this time as to whether or not the famine victims were purposive killings - as part of the campaign of repression against kulaks - or whether they were simply unintended victims of the struggle over forced collectivization.

Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime, with a number of recent books suggesting a probable figure of somewhere between 15 to 20 million. Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims. Pioneering researcher Robert Conquest[9], meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million. Others, however, continue to maintain that their earlier much higher estimates are correct.[71]"

This version does not state that one particular number is true and fairly represents all views. Ultramarine 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. This section does not at all represent all views manifested by the absence of how the majority of scholars perceive archival data to be correct e.g J.Arch Getty, Viktor Zemskov, Gabor T. Rittersporn, Stephen Wheatcroft, Mark Harrison, R.W Davies, Robert Thurston, Gregory Freeze, etc, etc, etc. There is disproportionate emphasis given to right-wing leaning scholars including Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vadim Erlikman, Robert Conquest. While there is one single sentence about archival reports, there are four paragraphs devoted to a fringe of scholars that hold a contrary view. Mikhaul Frunze

These are not the fringe. Scholars that consider only what the killers themselves noted are certainly a minority. You are incorrect regarding for example Wheatcroft, he includes many other sources beside the archives for famine victims. Here is another example, a scholar who finds at least 10 million deaths in 30s alone: [72]Ultramarine 02:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Steven Rosefield's work was largely refuted by Stephen G. Wheatcroft in various articles during the 1980s. It has since been acknowledged that Stephen Wheatcroft's estimations matched archival data. Nice try, though. If you had actually read the 1990s works of Stephen Wheatcroft whether in the book "Years of Hunger" or articles in scholarly journals, it would be seen that he exclusively uses archival documents to reach his conclusions. You are therefore incorrect in saying that he uses other sources other than archival data. Please take your "Freedom House" subversion elsewhere because it is corrupting respectable academica. Mikhaul Frunze

Rosefield certainly does not agree. He article is from 90s. Regarding Wheatcroft, he states around 6 million deaths in the famine. Again, Wikipedia should not state who is right. We should only report all views. Another examples, the Black Book of Communism finds 20 million deaths in the Soviet Union, most of those under Stalin.Ultramarine 03:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As you always have, you have once again misrepresented the works of others. Stephen Wheatcroft documented 2.3 million excess deaths in Ukraine, North Caucuses, and Lower Volga. You can find out for yourself by either checking into his book or by checking into data that he posted on Mark Harrison's web site. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/

Concerning the "Black Book of Communism", it is not a source worthy of scholarly consideration as it has been debunked by the scholar J.Arch Getty.Mikhaul Frunze

Again, it is not you who decides who is correct. Wikpedia should report all views, not just those you want. Regarding Wheatcroft, here is from exactly the same webpage, by Mark Harrison: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/reviews/davies-wheatcroft2004.pdf
Wheatcroft, Davies, and Harrison all agree on around 6 million deaths in the famine.Ultramarine 03:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not decide who is and who is not correct, if you would read the current version of the page. Notice that I distinctly said that Wheatcroft reported data for Ukraine, Lower Volga, and North Caucuses. Kazakhstan is not included because there does not exist precise data for it. The chart I posted is an expansion of his data on page 415. It specefically counts: 1.54 million in Ukraine, 300 thousand in North Caucuses, and 250 thousand in the Volga. This adds up to not 5 million victims, but 2 million. Mikhaul Frunze

Original research is not allowed. If you yourself are critical, publish it in a journal, not in Wikipeida. Wheatcroft, Davies, and Harrison all agree on around 6 million deaths in the famine.Ultramarine 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not original research but is rather material reported by Davies and Wheatcroft. They use the Russian archive section RGAE 1562/329/108 that documents 2 million excess deaths in Ukraine, North Caucuses, and the Lower Volga. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Mikhaul Frunze

Yes, but they add deaths from other sources. In total, Davies, Wheatcroft, and Harrrison support around 6 million deaths in the famine. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/reviews/davies-wheatcroft2004.pdf If you disagree, publish your research in a journal. Original research is not allowed here.Ultramarine 03:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That is simply a matter of opinion. The Russian archives distinctly state that there were 2 million excess deaths in Ukraine, North Caucuses, and the Lower Volga. The review of one's work by someone else does not necessarily mean it has been accurately presented. On pg. 415, Davies and Wheatcroft wrote:

Kazakhstan Famine: approxmiate: 1.3 - 1.5 million Registered excess deaths, 1932-1933: 2.9 million Excess Odeaths in the OGPU System: 300 thousand

This adds up to not 6 million but 4.6 million. Disregarding the Kazakh famine because there is not evidence for it in the archives, the excess deaths in Ukraine, North Caucuses, and the Lower Volga amount to between about 2.5 million. You are yet again misrepresenting the works of these scholars. The summary of one's work will not be given preference over what the authors actually said. Mikhaul Frunze

Again, it is your personal opinion that Davies, Wheatcroft, and Harrrison are incorrect. This is uninsteresting in Wikipedia. You must publish your opinon outside Wikipedia. Ultramarine 03:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you've hit the nail on the head in stating "that is simply a matter of opinion." It is not wikipedia's place to espouse an opinion as fact. siafu 03:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say that they are incorrect. Data from the Kazakh famine has been neglected because there is not any archival evidence for it. Instead, we have opted to use official records from Russian archives that were posted by Stephen G. Wheatcroft on Mark Harrison's web page. You have actually misrepresented their work as having concluded 6 million from famine when in fact on page 415 they concluded that the 1932-1933 rural famine, the Kazakh famine, and excess deaths of the labor camps add up to 4.6 million. Mikhaul Frunze

This from the same webpate: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/reviews/davies-wheatcroft2004.pdf The 6 million number can be found in the book on p. 401. Ultramarine 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That summary is contradicted by what Wheatcroft and Davies themselves wrote on p.415:

Estimates of excess deaths from famine, 1930-1933 (millions)

Kazakhstan famine:approximate: 1.3-1.5 Excess deaths in the OGPU system: .03+ Registered excess deaths, 1932-1933: 2.9 million

This adds up to about 4.6 million.

Fortunately, personal opinions are not allowed in Wikipedia. Wheatcroft and Davies have published a scholarly boook. You disagree with them, publish on youself. Then come back.Ultramarine 03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That summary is contradicted by what Wheatcroft and Davies themselves wrote on p.415:

Estimates of excess deaths from famine, 1930-1933 (millions)

Kazakhstan famine:approximate: 1.3-1.5

Excess deaths in the OGPU system: .03+

Registered excess deaths, 1932-1933: 2.9 million

This adds up to about 4.6 million.

With 2 million neglected from the Kazakh famine and the OGPU whose deaths are included in the GULAG from 1930-1953, we are left with 2.5 million excess deaths in 1932-1933. Hence, it was written that in 1932-1933, there were 2 million excess deaths in Ukraine, Lower Volga, and North Caucuses which are found in the Russian archives and which were reported by Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies.

Mikhaul Frunze

Again, Wikipedia is not the place the criticze a scholarly book. Read Wikipedia:No original research. It is your opinoin that these scholars have made a mistake. Fine. Publish it. Then you can cite this in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 03:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I neither questioned the material of a scholarly book nor asserted that they made a mistake. You are telling lies. I am citing figures from Russian archives that can be found on Mark Harrison's web page while you are citing figures from a book review that are contrary to what the authors concluded on page 415. You are without credibility. Mikhaul Frunze

Again, it is your personal opinion that Davies, Wheatcroft, and Harrrison are incorrect when they add to the number from the archives. This is from Mark Harrison's webpage http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/reviews/davies-wheatcroft2004.pdf The same number can be found on p. 401. So, you think that only the archive number should count. Davies, Wheatcroft, and Harrrison disagree and include other numbers. They are scholars and have published an academic book.Ultramarine 03:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a REVIEW of a book as opposed to material taken directly from the book. On page 415, Davies and Wheatcroft established a figure of 4.5 million that included 2.9 million registered excess deaths, 1.4 million Kazakh famine deaths, and 300 thousand OGPU deaths. You can verify for yourself by actually reading the book. Mikhaul Frunze

On p. 401 they state their best estimate: around 6 million deaths. You think that only archive numbers should count. Davies, Wheatcroft, and Harrrison disagree and add to these numbers.Ultramarine 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

P. 401 of the work in concern states the following: "As we explain below, our own view is that these extreme estimates are implausable and that excess deaths probably amounted to 5.5 to 6.5 million"

Of course, as shown by the term "probably", there is not any certainty or conclsion reached on their estimates. Chapter 13 starts at page 400 and ends at page 441. Half way through on p.415, they have put an estimate resulting from 1.5 million from Kazakh famine, 2.9 million from registered excess deaths, and 300 thousand from the OGPU system that amount to 4.6 million. The book review does not accurately convey the material of their book.Mikhaul Frunze

Aroumd 6 million is the scholars best estimate. You, Mikhaul Frunze, think that they are incorrect and have made an error when adding to the archive data. This is an opinion not published in an reliable source like an academic book or article. Therefore publish your opinion in an reliable source and come back.Ultramarine 04:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

P. 401 of the work in concern states the following: "As we explain below, our own view is that these extreme estimates are implausable and that excess deaths probably amounted to 5.5 to 6.5 million"

Of course, as shown by the term "probably", there is not any certainty or conclsion reached on their estimates. Chapter 13 starts at page 400 and ends at page 441. Half way through on p.415, they put an estimate of 4.6 million resulting from 1.5 million from Kazakh famine, 2.9 million from registered excess deaths, and 300 thousand from the OGPU system. The book review does not accurately convey the material of their book and is surely not of more reliability than what is actually written in the book. The chart that I linked is an expansion of the data they posted on page 415: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls It is actually a part of their book. In contrast, you have put forth nothing but hearsay from a reviewer who had nothing to do with writing the book. Mikhaul Frunze

Again, it is your personal opinion that Davies, Wheatcroft, and Harrrison are incorrect when they add to the number from the archives. This is from Mark Harrison's webpage http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/reviews/davies-wheatcroft2004.pdf The same number can be found on p. 401. Around 6 million is the scholars best estimate for the famine. You, Mikhaul Frunze, think that they are incorrect and have made an error when adding to the archive data. This is an opinion not published in an reliable source like an academic book or article. Therefore publish your opinion in an reliable source and come back. The archive data as such is a reliable source. The opinion that it exactly represents the number killed is your own opinion and not allowed in Wikipedia. Publish you opinion that the archive data exactly represent the true number killed and come back.Ultramarine 04:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
What this basically amounts to is him saying that those who base their estimates solely on archival figures and discount the possibility of unrecorded deaths trump other scholars who do not by virtue of the fact that the former have argued with the latter group. While that is merely lamentable as a personal view, it is completely unacceptable for the purposes of this page. --TJive 13:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The data in Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1- indicates 7 million ecxess deaths in 1933--Woogie10w 13:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous version of the page will be kept because the version endorsed by the Cold Warriors contains disproportional emphasis on right-wing partisan sources including those by Rummel, Solzhenitsyn, Anne Applebaum, and others that make unsubstantiated claims that Stalin "killed 20 million". The vast majority of scholars including J.Arch Getty, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, Robert Thurston, Gregory Freeze, and countless others who have cited archival documents perceive archival information to be correct. This page needs to be balanced and accomdodate all points of view equally instead of writing one paragraph for archival information and four paragraphs for right-wing dissidents.

Once again, in reply to the who persistently lies about how Wheatcroft and Davies asserted 6 million famine deaths in 1932-33, take a look at p.415 where the conclusions for the death toll are reached. Nowhere is a figure of 6 million endorsed. A review of one's work will cannot be used as a credible source as opposed to material directly derived from one's work e.g the chart that lists the famine deaths. The previous version of this page will yet again be discredited by me:

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

That is just simply incorrect. There were a diverse array of estimates prior to the Cold War which included about 5 million by the demographers Frank Lorimer, Barbara Anderson, and Eric Silver. To simply cite Solzhenitsyn is to give preference to a source which is not allowed.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, hard evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available, and many of the earlier, higher estimates became more difficult to sustain. For example, the archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while another 1.7 million died of privation in the Gulags and some 389,000 perished during kulak resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.

While other figures are correct, there is not evidence anywhere in the archives that deaths in the labor camps was anywhere near 1.7 million. The real figure is 1 million.

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

It is not generally agreed that the archival data are incomplete. This is immediately contradicted by the countless scholars who have cited archival material. There is not any evidence of data being carelessly recorded. Those who find the archival data to be incomplete are in the minority and have been thoroughly refuted by those who defend archival information.

Thus, while some archival researchers have posited the number of victims of Stalin's repressions to be no more than about 4 million in total [10][11][12], others believe the number to be considerably higher. Russian writer Vadim Erlikman[10], for example, has made the following estimations: Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

One single author is not allowed to be receptive to disproportionate emphasis. The point has already been made that some authors disagree with the archival figures. This paragraph above is a manifestation of redundency. Erlikman is incorrect to assert 1.5 million executions because actual death sentences did not exceed 800 thousand. He is incorrect to assert 5 million in the GULAG because there is not any evidence for it. He is incorrect to even cite the deportation of 7.5 million because the archives show that about half of that figure were deported. He is also incorrect about German POWs because the total of POWs that perished from all countries in Soviet custody was 520 thousand. Again, this is to give disproportionate emphasis on a fringe scholar whose views are not endorsed by mainstream academic circles.

These numbers are by no means the full story of deaths attributable to the regime however, since at least another 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine must be added.[13][11][12] But again historians differ, this time as to whether or not the famine victims were purposive killings - as part of the campaign of repression against kulaks - or whether they were simply unintended victims of the struggle over forced collectivization.

This is yet again exemplary of Wikipedia's shoddy material. The source of Stephen Wheatcroft and R.W Davies is deliberately misused because they favored a figure of 4.6 million - 5.7 million in their work. Archival demographic information asserts that there were 2.5 million excess deaths in Ukraine, Lower Volga, and North Caucuses which is undeniably of more reliability than partisan estimates.

Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime, with a number of recent books suggesting a probable figure of somewhere between 15 to 20 million. Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims. Pioneering researcher Robert Conquest[13], meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million. Others, however, continue to maintain that their earlier much higher estimates are correct.[14]

It is wholly incorrect to say that there is a minimum surplus death total of 10 million. Most archival researchers have favoured a minimum toll of 5.5 million which is reached by 1 million in GULAG + 800 thousand executed + 400 thousand kulaks + 520 thousand POWs + 3 million famine deaths. There is yet again disproportionate emphasis given to some fringe Russian-Jew scholar named Erlikman as if he is the sole authority on the subject. The adjective of "pioneering" for Robert Conquest is an automatic POV and needs to be removed. His views have been thoroughly challenged and refuted by Stephen Wheatcroft. The emphasis given to Rummel is another pathetic joke as his work has been discredited. Overall, we've got a single sentence devoted to archival information while the rest gives emphasis to half-baked estimates that lie in the minority. Mikhaul Frunze

Your own discounting of all estimates opposed to a handful of mentioned sources in the explicit context of historical debate is not appropriate for this encyclopedia and on a personal level you are behaving horribly. --TJive 17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The research by Andreev which was published by the Russian Academy of Science indicates 7 million excess deaths in 1933.--Woogie10w 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Frunze your remark , "some fringe Russian-Jew scholar named Erlikman" lets us know your POV. We hear you loud and clear.--Woogie10w 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What do anti-Semites and jelly beans have in common? They come in the most surprising flavours. Have a look at the script for "The Believer" (movie), and read the rant by the protagonist about why people hate jews. Fascinating. Barf. Dietwald 11:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalins religion of choice?

I was just curious, but what did Stalin consider himself, religiously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerset219 (talk • contribs)

He was born a Christain, but as a communist, one would think he would consider himself an athiest. --C33 00:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, Stalin a communist...no really I think the Man of Steel's religion was the Stalin himself.
  • Interesting take. Just be sure not to explode in giant wikiwars over this as in the Hilter page (incredibly ugly btw). Just serving as a warning. Colonel Marksman 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lev Shubnikov

The Joseph Stalin mentions that Lev Shubnikov, the physicist, was shot. I'd like to see a cite for that. Google has several hundred hits indicating that he was shot, but they're all derived from the Stalin article in Wikipedia. This issue came up because someone created an article for him, and the question then arose over whether he actually was shot, and if so, for what. --John Nagle 05:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Roses For Stalin" LOL

Man, that painting is hilarious- The Producers II: Summer for Stalin, Autumn for Mao. Stalin dreessed in white, standing in a bucholic pasture, with small rosy-cheeked children giving him flowers. Totalitarian kitsch, I love it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandDeschain (talk • contribs)

First please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Second, what is your point exactly? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jozeef Stalin?

I find the Arabic version quite comical, his name is clearly 'Yousef', and obviously we're calling him the English version 'Joseph', I can't see why this means we have to bastardise the same thing in Arabic when clearly his name is 'Yousef', I've changed the name under his picture and at the start, if somebody can change the title that would be very helpful, I can't conduct an Arabic search on this computer so if someone with the ability could go through and check the rest.

It be prudent if we did the same things for the Persian and Hebrew versions.

--Zayd 13:45, 29 July 2006


Famines in Tsarist Russia

The estimations of number of victims of famines in Tsarist Russia differs. For example, this source [73] says it were 2.8 million victims in 1901, and 1 million in 1911.--Nixer 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversions by Ultramarine

Ultramarine, please exoplain your reversions. Why do you not respect the WP:AWW and WP:NPOV rules?--Nixer 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the nature of the edits, but I can say for sure that it would be much better if you could write the reference information in English, as this is the English wikipedia. siafu 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Agrre, if you are providing Russian sources, you need to provide a translation. Richard Pipes states that the worst famine in the late Tsarist Russia, in 1992, caused 375,000-400,000 deaths.[74]Ultramarine 20:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
OK I will translate the source above but it is not connected with my edits. I only want to eliminate weasel words.--Nixer 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, what historian has not blamed the Stalinist regime for the '32-33 famine? Just curious. Because as far as I am aware, every historian has found the regime culpable for the famine, they just differ on whether it was deliberate or accidental. Gatoclass 04:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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