Talk:Great Purge

Shouldn't the name really be "Great Purges"?

No, it is vastly more commonly known as the Great Purge, and therefore trumps accuracy. Kent Wang 05:18, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it is more commonly known as The Great Terror. Perhaps this page should be renamed as such.Marlowe 19:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Joke

According to a contemporary joke, "there are three kinds of people in the Soviet Union: those that were in prison camps, those that are in prison camps, and those that will be in prison camps."

This joke is well-known indeed, but it is not from these early times. Mikkalai 04:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

this article

That the Nazis were about to invade is not mentioned in this article at all. France was run by a left-wing government and what happened there? The Nazi-friendly army high command surrendered immediately (quite unlike WWI) and quickly helped set up Vichy France with Petain and other high French military and political officials. This did not happen in the USSR obviously. If the Russians had rolled over for the Nazis like the French did due to leaving traitors in high positions, I guess everyone here would be much happier.

Executions are mentioned over and over and over, and of course, the person writing this tries to conflate executions, people who died in prison and people imprisoned, and why wouldn't they? Only people charged with treachery were executed and the number was not large. By 1938 there had been some excesses, which the Politburo had not wanted, but this was inflated during the Cold War as it is here.

Some of this is flat-out nonsense - "Some of its strongest political supporters, and most senior army officers were systematically identified and either executed". Does this make any sense - the USSR and government would execute its strongest political supporters? This doesn't even make any sense from an anti-Soviet perspective.

I agree. This article is heavily biased and distorted. Shorne 19:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that the purge of general officers just before World War II was a successful Nazi counterintelligence operation designed to weaken the Soviet army. Another little known fact is that the Soviets dismantled their extensive defenses on their western frontier after the treaty with the Nazis. Fred Bauder 22:54, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

And the latter would mean what?... Mikkalai 20:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And on and on...where did this article come from, the New American? -- Ruy Lopez 18:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Some excesses??? All of the most senior officials (Politburo members) executed were subsequently rehabilitated (recognized innocent) by Soviet government. I don't immediately have data on lower level officials but I believe an overwhelming majority of those were recognized innocent as well. Soviet government itself has recognized that those people were not guilty. Given that, saying "potential traitors and those whose loyalty to the USSR was in doubt" is very dubious. Andris 19:08, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ruy, it's good that you want to edit the article—articles on the USSR, and particularly the Stalin era, generally are a bit skewed, in my opinion (take a look at Robert Conquest if you really want to get worked up). But you should be cautious in editing, and work incrementally so that people don't have to deal with a ton of important changes at once. Everyking 20:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please do work on the article, Ruy, I am especially interested in seeing some citations to contemporary explanations by Communist organizations which attempt to explain, or deny, this event or its details. My experience is that they simply don't believe it, think it is made up propaganda. I wonder for example, how Jack Shulman explained this to himself. Fred Bauder 13:01, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez's edits

Consider the first of Ruy's edits ([1]) in which this language:

The Great Purge was a period of mass repression in the Soviet Union in the late 1930s, during which the Communist Party leadership under Joseph Stalin used execution and mass imprisonment to eliminate existing and potential political opposition among its members.

Is replaced by this language:

The Great Purge was a period of Soviet history in the late 1930s during which the Communist Party purged itself of potential traitors and those whose loyalty to the USSR was in doubt by mass imprisonment and sometimes execution in preparation for the coming Nazi invasion.

Note first the removal of the general language, "period of mass repression" A good thing to get a link in to the Soviet Union, but it weakens the accuracy of the article. Most of the victims of that time were not party members. One can call the period "The Great Terror" as Robert Conquest does more appropriately than the "Great Purge" as Great Purge implies that it concerned only Party members. Kulaks who were imprisoned or killed could not be considered "purged" as they were not Party members, but "class enemies". Both versions of the first paragraph continue with that error, the first refering to "during which the Communist Party leadership under Joseph Stalin used execution and mass imprisonment to eliminate existing and potential political opposition among its members"; the replacement to "the Communist Party purged itself of potential traitors and those whose loyalty to the USSR was in doubt".

The bulk of Conquest's book, by the way, a revised edition was published in 1990, "The Great Terror: A Reassessment", concerns the purge of party members with a great deal of attention to the show trials, but he does discuss the widening of the terror to include other elements, see page 256 and thereafter of the trade paperback edition, ISBN 0195071328. A more clearly understandable source is the chapter, "The Great Terror (1936-1938), pages 184 to 202, in The Black Book of Communism", ISBN 0674076087.

The language in the replacement introduction, "in preparation for the coming Nazi invasion" is simply anachronistic. Basically it ascribes prescience to Stalin while simultaneously assuming the purges strengthend the Soviet Union rather than weakening it, which is the usual interpretation of the effect of the purges. While Stalin did not sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact until the summer of 1939 he does not seem to have anticipated the Nazi attack in 1941. This is evidenced by the dismantling of the extensive bunker system on the western borders of the Soviet Union.

perhaps the language indicates prescience, that does not mean that Stalin did not know very well that the Nazis were going to be invading. As far whether the purges strengthened or weakened the Soviet Union, that is a debate left to historians, who are usually heavily biased with regards to the USSR anyway. It's not as if the US did not lock up people whose loyalty was in doubt in the US during WWII for the "crime" of being Japanese or German (and US soil was never invaded, and the US involvement in WWII was more peripheral than the USSR certainly). The notion that the Russian leadership were surprised by the invasion is ludicrous. Of course they did not know the exact day and hour they would be attacked, but they knew sooner or later the Nazis would attack them. They were trying to buy as much time as possible and putting the Russian army on the border would not been too antagonistic. Ruy Lopez 06:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actualy, Stalin was personal informed through NKVD contacts in Germany of the exact date and time of operation by Richard Sorge, a Soviet agent working for the Nazi's in Berlin. TDC 06:41, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I should also note that even Nicholas Werth you refer to in the BBBoC ridiculed Conquest's Great Purge numbers, and of course, Conquest revised his numbers downwards in the 1990s - why not, the damage had already been done. Ruy Lopez 01:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Name and scope of article

Some conclusions: We should change the name of the article to The Great Terror and expand its coverage to cover suppression of the other groups such as the kulaks and other social and ethnic groups considered class enemies. Fred Bauder 21:27, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

• We should certainly cover kulaks and other groups but I am wondering about terminology/titles of the articles. The History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953) article says

The period between 1936-1937 is often called the Great Terror

and a few other sources that I found also use "Great Terror" for this period only. What is the most commonly accepted meaning? Does "Great Terror" include all of Stalin's era or just late 1930s? Any other term we could use (since we should certainly include everything)? Andris 22:43, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely not Stalin's entire era, after collectivization and the accompaning famine there was a quite period and after 1938 while killing and imprisonment still went on it was at a much slower pace. Then they invaded the Baltic States and Finland, the Germany invade them. There was a period after the war when all who had been taken prisoner by the Nazi's was put into the camps as well as all German prisoners of war, but there was no mass killing on the scale of the great terror. I don't think it can reasonably be termed Conquest's pet term. I think most historys use "Great Terror". Fred Bauder 00:06, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

No, we definitely do not need to change the name of the article from the commonly recognized name to Conquest's pet term. That title should be used for an article on his book. Everyking 22:50, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A google search for soviet stalin "great terror" returns about 5,000 hits, a search for soviet stalin "great purge" only returns about 2,600. Fred Bauder 00:10, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

• I did a similar search, adding -Conquest to search terms and "great terror" still had more hits than "great purge". Since I am a non-native English speaker and have read most of material in other languages with different terminology, I can't judge the terms myself. But google-search does not confirm that "great terror" is Conquest's pet term. Andris 00:21, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

That's because there are variations. A search for Soviet + Stalin + purges turns up 24,000 hits, Soviet + Stalin + purge 15,000, Soviet + Stalin + "Great Purges" 3,000. Soviet + Stalin + terror gets 79,500, but even among the initial results it's clear many don't refer to just this period, but are using the word generally. "Great Terror" is too closely associated with Conquest, and consequently it would be radically POV to use that as the title. Everyking 01:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No name change: (1) the term was in use before Conquest. (2) Conquest himself uses the term "purge", even in the title. (3) Be it party or kulaks, it was still "purge" of the society. BTW, there indeed was a period called Red Terror, and it indeed corresponds to the period: the goal was terror. And during the Great Purge the goal was not terror: it was purge. Also, the latter period was not perceived as "terror" by contemporaries. The feeling of terror came later. Mikkalai 02:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not perceived as "terror" by contemporaries? Have you read any memoirs from the 1930's? The Great Terror was absolutely felt as both a terror and terrible by the contemporaneous Soviet population. Hence, this article's title should be changed. Marlowe 15:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From the point of view of statistics, those who can write personal memoirs are a highly biased cross-section of population. And those who read these memoirs introduce still larger bias by selectively reading them. One of the major reasons why Great Terror happened was that any take person fom the vast majority of population was not threatened, until the very moment he was hit. And even at this moment he was sure that it was a mistake. But what did a random worker at a Red Banner teakettle plant feel? Mikkalai 16:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are right that the arrested thought their arrest was a mistake. But, that is a far cry from suggesting they did not know what was going on or were not terrorized by it. The general population knew that people were being arrested, and even executed. Even the "random worker at a Red Banner tea kettle plant" knew this. He just thought that it would never happen to him...

The Red Terror is another period associated with the civil war, 1919-1921. Wikipedia has no article by that name either but it is another issue. I prefer the title Great Terror as it is the term most often used, but the real issue is the content of the article which if it uses the title Great Purge needs to overcome the restrictive nature of the title and include the entire scope of the "anti-Soviet elements" which were arrested, tried, imprisoned and executed. Fred Bauder 12:57, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

There is Red Terror. And there is no reason to rename the article in order to extend its scope. There was no period of "Great Terror" in Russian history. There is a term invented by Conuqest for his own historiographical purposes. The article is about the "Great Purge". If you want the article "Great Terror", you are welcome to write it, but please leave this one alone. "Entire scope of anti-Soviet elements" was arrested, tried, etc., since the very 1917. The discussed period characterised by the immense surge of executions among the commusist themselves. And this is the most notable trait of the period: communists are killing communists! That's why it got its name. If in adition to Conquest you bother to read Solzhenitsyn, you'll know that there was no big difference as to political persecution of the rest of population. Statistcis shows that the stream to Gulag was flowing basically with the same speed. Killing class enemies was something natural. It was a sudden surge of the enemies "discovered" among communists themselves that marked this period and attracted atention to it. Solzhenitsyn says that the 1937 timemark was totally arbitrary from Gulag point of view. Mikkalai 17:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Background

Removed from the article.

The bureaucracy of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party itself contained many individuals who were not enthusiastic regarding Stalin's policies. This was apparent to Stalin by sluggishness in the carrying out of his orders: for example, the campaign to verify Party cards in 1935, and resistance by statisticians to his requests that the 1937 census present more positive statistics. Part of the Great Terror was a purge of the Party and the bureaucracy in an effort to put personnel in place who would follow orders without question.

This is guesswork. If you want it here, please mention the sources of the conclusion. Otherwise it is "original research" at better.

The second goal was to eliminate "social dangerous elements", ex-kulaks, former members of opposing political parties such as the Social Revolutionaries, criminals and former Czarist officials. This group formed the bulk of those caught up in the Terror. Another issue was the Soviet concern with spies which Stalin felt were being infiltrated into the Soviet Union by neighboring countries.

This is anachronism. Kulaks and esers were fiercely persecuted much earlier. "ex-kulaks", "spies" are from propaganda lexicon of purgers. Was Bukharin a spy, really?

True, both social groups were persecuted earlier, but during the Great Terror there was a second run at them. Kulaks often were not liquidated or imprisoned the first time around, rather they were not allowed to join kolkhoz and given poor land to farm or deported to the east or north. However, experience showed that former kulaks often were able to find good jobs and enter the work force. Many of them and other socially dangerous elements had also moved away from the north and east and were mingling with the general population. A decision was made to imprison or liquidate them. Pages 166, 167, Black Book of Communism. Fred Bauder 21:00, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Bukharin was a special case, simply a political opponent tried on trumped up charges. Fred Bauder 21:00, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

He was not. He was a general case. See, e.g., Moscow show trials. Mikkalai 00:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The whole section is right from the pages of Pravda newspaper, i.e., it is POV of a certain political position.

No it is from page 201 of The Black Book of Communism. Fred Bauder 21:00, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

If it is so, it undermines the credibility of the book. You should read minutes of show trials. They are available on internet. YOu would see how ridiculous the accusations typically were. Mikkalai 00:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bukharin was at least an actual political opponent of Stalin, most of the people swept up during the Great Terror, for example, his wife, and the thousands of others whose only crime was that they had a bad background had done nothing at all. Fred Bauder 13:09, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Before making cardinal changes' I'd suggest to read the whole body of wikipedia article on the subject, starting from enemy of the people. Mikkalai 19:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An alternative explanation, which also applies to Hitler, is that Stalin was crazy. It's kind of hard to get at this in an objective way. The categories of pathology do not apply well to men of this nature. There were objective dangers posed by his opponents and people with anti-Soviet social background or history, but he both exaggerated and fabricated. One question which is I suppose is unanswerable, Did he believe the confessions which the NKVD extracted meant anything? Who did? Fred Bauder 14:51, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

There are two main problems with the history of Stalin era.

• First, Stalin left no memoirs, hence all phrases of kind "Stalin felt...", "Stalin decided" are logical conclusions, based on his actions. THese conclusions are subject to reassessment. They also depend on the background of the author. Therefore in encyclopedia we cannot write "Stalin thought". It is clear-cut POV. One can write "Stalin did" and "Historiand and contemporaries present the following reasons why he did so..." including "stalin was crazy", since the latter opinion is in circulation.
• The role of Stalin is central, but not all what happened may be blamed solely on Stalin. Hence the analysis of what really happened cannot be restricted to "Stalin decided..", "Stalin thought..". Stalin's decisions and thoughts avalanched into an enormous mass of actions all over the country by more than willing executives. Unfortunately wikipedia articles fail to address this issue, too locked on Stalin. Mikkalai 16:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First, most of the major communists left no memoirs - neither Marx, nor Lenin, nor Stalin. They considered it vanity, and Molotov said as much. Second, I concur this artcile and other articles are too Stalin-centric. I find this a generic problem on Wikipedia, people seem to want to whittle history down to a handful of people - Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt. That makes for a good play or movie, but not for a good history. Ruy Lopez 01:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rehabilitation

It's funny to see people who are obviously hostile to the Soviet Union cite the Khrushchevite rehabilitation of purged people as an argument against the purges. Of course Khrushchev rehabilitated his fellow anti-Stalinists. What do you expect? Shorne 19:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not funny to see this level of misunderstanding of what happened in the USSR. It was not like Khruschev rehabilitated a couple of his party buddies. And hostility towards Soviet Union does not automatically means hostility to Russian people. (If better "dead than red" then purges are a good thing.) What's wrong and funny with rehabilitation of a person whose only guilt was that his farm had two horses and he hired a helper during harvest, and thusly was declared kulak? Go laugh somewhere else, e.g., at Homophobia. Much funnier. Mikkalai 20:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Khruschev did not rehabilitate a couple of his party buddies, but that does not mean what he was doing can't be perceived as politically expedient. He was in a political battle with what he termed the Anti-Party Group, and throwing mud on Stalin (and thus indirectly, them) helped weaken their position and strengthen his in their internal party battles. Ruy Lopez 01:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There seems to have been a misunderstanding. What I found funny was the citation of the Khrushchevites by people who, in any other case, would not have had a good word for Khrushchev.

But, now that we're on the subject, what's so shocking about declaring someone a kulak who hired workers? That seems accurate enough to me. Whether you approve of socialism or not, you have to admit that the hiring of employees for private gain is a non-socialist practice—one that a socialist government will naturally wish to abolish. Shorne 21:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And the best way being sending them and their wives and children to Siberian labor camps. And not letting their children to enter university. And declaring some persons kulaks only because the regional party committee received a plan to "de-kulak", say, 600 persons, and unanimously voted to over-execute the plan and to deliver 650 of them, only to find out that there are only 400 real kulaks, but the promise already went up the command. And load them into a carriage with max. 50 kilogram luggage per person and drop in the middle of Kazakhstan steppe with 100 km to the nearest population centre.

And what exactly non-socialist in this practice? It peacefully existed in later times and in many socialist countries. And btw., which brand of socialism do you have in mind? Mikkalai 22:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That rant has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Shorne 07:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You said "Of course Khrushchev rehabilitated his fellow anti-Stalinists". I said he rehabilitated men whose engagement in politics didn't go further than having two horses. There is nothing shocking declaring someone kulak. Shocking is how kulaks were treated. And your notion of "socialism" seems narrow. That's why wy last question. Mikkalai 14:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone rich enough to hire workers was not engaged in politics in a socialist society? As I said above, private employment is antisocialist. It is also an impediment to collectivisation. Never mind whether you or I or anyone else considers the USSR of the 1930s socialist: the fact remains that the country was pursuing a policy of agricultural collectivisation, and the kulaks were hostile to that, for the obvious reason that they wanted to retain their relatively high status at the expense of others. Vast numbers of kulaks in the Ukraine and elsewhere actively resisted collectivisation, to the point of destroying collective property, attacking those who joined the collectives, refusing to work (while occupying some of the most productive land in the entire USSR), and attempting to sabotage the movement. It's no surprise that these people were not received graciously.

No one argues tghat there were enemies. I am talking about overshooting. If you don't believe me, may be you will believe Stalin himself. His Pravda article "Dizziness because of Successes" ("Golovokruzhenie ot uspekhov") basically says what I say here: overkill, to be backed off. It was greatly cheered, thought as a sign of democratization. But after a brief recoil, everything went the same way: there were vastly more innocents than real enemies who got punished. And that is the point. No one argues that kulaks were enemies of Soviets, but the trouble was that Soviets sought for much more enemies than it was. And these enemies were punished much more severely than "revolutionaries" and "bombists" during "bloody tsarist" times. Mikkalai 00:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Stalin admitted that mistakes were made and that excesses were committed. I agree. My beef with this article is that it is overwhelmingly slanted. Of course it should mention that a lot of people were wrongly killed, imprisoned, or disgraced. But the suggestion that everyone was an innocent victim is a distortion. People who have tried to put the facts (as well as they are known—and let's not pretend that we have rock-solid data on thousands of individual cases) in a more neutral light have seen their changes silently reverted. That is wrong.

By the way, I'm glad that I can at least discuss this rationally with you. I shall not waste any more of my time on the revisionists here who seem hellbent on censoring any hint that their "truth" is not universally accepted as fact. Shorne 00:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sob story about being kept out of university sells well in the West, where most people can attend university if they want to (except in the US, where some people cannot afford it). It is less convincing when one considers how very uncommon university education was in the USSR in those days. You complain that the children of some kulaks were kept out of university. How about the children of those kulaks' hired hands—would they have been able to go to university twenty years earlier? They would have been lucky to attend school for a few years.

It might be a surprise for you, but university and higher technical education was very common at "these" times (1935-1955). What is more, all students who studied reasonably well got stipends, so there was no question about affordability. The "20 years earlier" argument does not apply here. You cannot justify a wrong by a previous wrong. Mikkalai 00:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to justify any wrongs. I was simply pointing out the existence of inequalities. It reminds me of the debates over so-called affirmative action (giving slight preference to Blacks and others in such things as university admission) in the United States: many white people don't mind the systemic inequality that favours them but cry foul over any inequality in the opposite direction. Shorne 00:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for getting deported to Kazakhstan, I'm sure that there were there were many excesses and that numerous people were mistreated. That said, very often the people deported were those who simply sat on their land, refusing to work. They were trying to starve the USSR into abandoning collectivisation. Again, it's hardly surprising that the government removed the idle from the land and replaced them with people willing to work it. Shorne 16:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Sitting on the land", "starving the USSR"... USSR was relatively well fed shortly after the end of the Civil War. Early 1930s was happy and optimistic time. Where did you get your ideas from? Mikkalai 00:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Resistance to collectivisation. Do you deny that some people in the Ukraine simply refused to work the land? Shorne 00:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, what's so shocking in killing and enslaving people? Take Nero, Ivan the Terrible, slaves caught in Africa and brought to America.... It is our modern reevaluation that makes it shocking. At these times it was a common, non-notable thing for most of populatiion. Mikkalai 15:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have a point. Most people lack the perspective to understand their own era. The events of today will certainly be seen differently fifty years hence. Shorne 16:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

notes

Stalin's name is mentioned in this article *twelve* times. Yezhov's name is mentioned three times. Eisenhower's name is mentioned 0 times in the Red Scare article, McCarthy's name is used in some context four times. The purge was no more an act of will of Stalin in his country of millions than the Red Scare was an act of will of Eisenhower or McCarthy. Stalin's name does not have to be mentioned twelve times to note that he approved of the party purges, even having a hand in them (and later reigning in excesses). In reading the history of the USSR on Wikipedia from the mid 1920's to mid 1950's, it's almost as if no one else exists except Stalin. Ruy Lopez 06:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There's a heavy bias.

I would also appreciate it if people would not revert changes without comment. Ruy Lopez just corrected an exaggerated statement of executions, and someone silently reverted it. I restored it, albeit in a slightly different form. Shorne 07:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree as well and noted this earlier, somewhat above. In addition to "individuals who were not enthusiastic" there were millions who were more that eager to purge, deport, confisacte, incarcerate, cheer, etc. in every district of Russia. Mikkalai 14:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Controversy over Conquest's book

Why do you two insist on denying the controversy over Conquest's book? This is absolutely no place for a long paragraph of pæans to that book, which can in any case be found at the article on Conquest. It is, however, entirely appropriate to mention that some people do question Conquest's received wisdom.

Facts and references, please, welcome. Mikkalai 00:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC).

Just for starters, see the article on Robert Conquest. Shorne 01:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll put it bluntly: this entire article is a hatchet job of one-sided reporting of a period for which balanced information is hard to find in the West. It reads like something from the pen of J Edgar Hoover. I call for a complete rewrite. In the meantime, I am marking this article as {{Long NPOV}}. Shorne 20:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any "balanced information" from the East? How about Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Stalin himself? Available on internet, BTW..

Oh, yes, Solzhenitsyn, with his famous claim of 66 million people in the gulags. More than the entire population of Byelorussia and the Ukraine put together. Do you really expect me to waste my time responding to such a whopping lie? Shorne 01:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stop whinning and report a different position on the subject. Mikkalai 00:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to wait until the censors and propagandists crawl back into their holes. I'm tired of writing things only to see them silently deleted and replaced with still more one-sided commentary. Shorne 01:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This entire debate is ridiculous, and I would strongly oppose any re write in the name of "fairness". Can a reasonably objective historian be cited to rebuke Conquest's work? TDC 21:16, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Even the page on Robert Conquest mentions his work as highly controversial and alludes, albeit inadequately, to the controversy. Presumably those statements will also vanish as soon as the friendly neighbourhood censors get their hands on them. And then we'll be treated to more citations from the Black Book of Anticommunist Bullshit, which, though touted as the very bible on the subject of deaths attributable to communism, has been widely exposed as inaccurate and propagandistic, even in the mainstream media of some First World countries. Shorne 01:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all, Conquest was not a historian, he was a British intelligence officer, then he worked for the British Foreign office in anti-Soviet propaganda. Second of all, Conquest's work was repudiated by Conquest himself in the 1990's. Ruy Lopez 01:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correct on both counts. But you can seldom persuade true believers. For them, Conquest's reputation trumps any amount of factual evidence, such as the numbers he confronted when the Soviet archives were opened to the world. He rushed in to find "proof" of his earlier claims. Inconveniently for him and his acolytes, the facts contradicted his vaunted "history". Shorne 01:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time arguing with people who, by their own admission, cannot write objectively on a subject on which opinions differ. Shorne 00:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, what other authority is there? And do any of them actually differ on some important point? Fred Bauder 21:46, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)